Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add alonf/specrew --skill reviewer-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alonf/specrewWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/alonf/specrew/reviewer-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alonf/specrew/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alonf/specrew/reviewer-protocol/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alonf/specrew/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alonf/specrew/reviewer-protocol.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00013 | $0.00988 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00395 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00198 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-protocol scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to reviewer-protocol — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
When a team member has a Reviewer role (e.g., Tester, Code Reviewer, Lead), they may approve or reject work from other agents. On rejection, the coordinator enforces strict lockout rules to ensure the original author does NOT self-revise. This prevents defensive feedback loops and ensures independent review.
Patterns
Reviewer Rejection Protocol
When a team member has a Reviewer role:
- Reviewers may approve or reject work from other agents.
- On rejection, the Reviewer may choose ONE of:
- Reassign: Require a different agent to do the revision (not the original author).
- Escalate: Require a new agent be spawned with specific expertise.
- The Coordinator MUST enforce this. If the Reviewer says "someone else should fix this," the original agent does NOT get to self-revise.
- If the Reviewer approves, work proceeds normally.
Strict Lockout Semantics
When an artifact is rejected by a Reviewer:
- The original author is locked out. They may NOT produce the next version of that artifact. No exceptions.
- A different agent MUST own the revision. The Coordinator selects the revision author based on the Reviewer's recommendation (reassign or escalate).
- The Coordinator enforces this mechanically. Before spawning a revision agent, the Coordinator MUST verify that the selected agent is NOT the original author. If the Reviewer names the original author as the fix agent, the Coordinator MUST refuse and ask the Reviewer to name a different agent.
- The locked-out author may NOT contribute to the revision in any form — not as a co-author, advisor, or pair. The revision must be independently produced.
- Lockout scope: The lockout applies to the specific artifact that was rejected. The original author may still work on other unrelated artifacts.
- Lockout duration: The lockout persists for that revision cycle. If the revision is also rejected, the same rule applies again — the revision author is now also locked out, and a third agent must revise.
- Deadlock handling: If all eligible agents have been locked out of an artifact, the Coordinator MUST escalate to the user rather than re-admitting a locked-out author.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 1cabc792d131
reviewer-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository alonf/specrew (54 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 988 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to reviewer-protocol, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…