bradygaster/squad is a tool that creates a human-directed team of AI development agents inside a project repository through GitHub Copilot. Developers use it to delegate work among persistent specialists such as frontend, backend, testing, and lead agents while retaining responsibility for decisions and review. The catalogue entries are the skills, agents, and instructions that define and coordinate those team members.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to bradygaster/squad. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bradygaster/squad/dev/.copilot/skills/reviewer-protocol/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bradygaster/squadWrote 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/bradygaster/squad/reviewer-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bradygaster/squad/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bradygaster/squad/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/bradygaster/squad/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bradygaster/squad/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 | $0.01009 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00404 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00101 |
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
95% identical to reviewer-protocol — 38 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 — 82 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
Quality and test reviewers may block a PR or merge on quality, coverage, or regression grounds. Treat that block as a rejection that enters the protocol below.
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 Changed · -4 lines c262486a165f
- 1mo ago First seen · 86 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A c1aa1b27bece
reviewer-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository bradygaster/squad (3,295 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,009 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to reviewer-protocol, differing in 38 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ponytail-review
Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this…
ponytail-audit
Whole-repo audit for over-engineering. Like ponytail-review, but scans the entire codebase instead of a diff: a ranked list of what to delete, simplify, or replace with stdlib/native equivalents. Use when the user says "audit this codebase", "audit for over-engineering", "what can I delete from this repo", "find…
omk-code-review
Review implementation changes against contracts and real failure modes, preserve minimal patches, and verify regressions without confusing test counts, generated code volume or CI claims with production correctness.
ralphctl-code-review-and-quality
Multi-phase code-quality skill — primary frame for the evaluator role in Execute, the architecture axis in Plan, and correctness/readability in Refine. Multi-axis code review with severity vocabulary. Use when acting as the evaluator assessing a generator's output, and when reviewing any change before signalling…
dos-verify-done-claims
Before accepting an agent's 'done / shipped / fixed' claim, verify it against ground truth (git ancestry + the commit's own diff) using the DOS kernel's dos verify and dos commit-audit — never the agent's own narration.
ce-code-review
Structured code review for bugs, regressions, tests, and standards. Use before PRs or when asked for review; interactive mode can fix locally, while mode:agent reports only for pipeline callers.