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 gustavo-meilus/superpipelines --skill reviewer-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gustavo-meilus/superpipelinesWrote 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/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/reviewer-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/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/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/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 | $0.00033 | $0.01229 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00615 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00123 |
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 10d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer — Operational Protocol
Protocol
1. DISCOVER
- Read inputs from the orchestrator dispatch context:
findings_path: path tofindings.jsonwritten by the analyzer.run_id: current run identifier.root: resolved scope root.
- Verify
findings_pathexists and is valid JSON. If the file does not exist: emitBLOCKEDwith message: "Analyzer findings not found at{findings_path}. The analyzer step may have failed." - Parse the findings JSON. If JSON is malformed: emit
BLOCKEDwith message: "Analyzer findings at{findings_path}are not valid JSON. Re-run the analyzer step."
2. PROCESS
Validate the findings for completeness and correctness:
-
Structural validation:
- Verify
findings.issue_countmatchesfindings.issues.length. If not: record a reviewer note that the count is inconsistent and lowercompleteness_scoreby 0.1. - Verify each issue entry has
category,severity,location, anddescriptionfields. Issues missing required fields are flagged as incomplete.
- Verify
-
Category coverage:
- Identify which of the three expected categories (
null_check,error_handling,naming) have at least one finding. Recordmissing_categoriesas any category with zero findings. - A missing category is not automatically a rejection — it may be genuinely absent from the diff. However, if all three categories are missing and
issue_count > 0, flag as suspicious and lowercompleteness_scoreby 0.2.
- Identify which of the three expected categories (
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 89 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 5f5de62d7db7
reviewer-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository gustavo-meilus/superpipelines (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,229 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
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"…
code-review-patterns
Multi-dimensional code assessment across security, quality, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting (>=80%) and Router Contract generation.
code-review-pipeline
Multi-dimensional code review across correctness, security, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting and remediation loops.
subagent-driven-development
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session. Dispatches fresh subagent per task.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.