Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sabbour/agentweaver. 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/sabbour/agentweaver/dev/.github/skills/reviewer-protocol/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sabbour/agentweaverWrote 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/sabbour/agentweaver/reviewer-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sabbour/agentweaver/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sabbour/agentweaver/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/sabbour/agentweaver/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sabbour/agentweaver/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 | $0.00012 | $0.00672 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00067 |
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 29d 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 — 62 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. A rejection requires a bounded, evidence-based corrective pass and re-review of the stated finding.
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 provides the evidence and corrective scope for one bounded corrective pass. The Reviewer may recommend expertise, and the Coordinator MUST preserve the stated review finding for re-review.
- The Coordinator MUST use one fresh agent context for that pass. It may use the same named agent and charter as the original author.
- If the Reviewer approves, work proceeds normally.
Reviewer Rejection Corrective-Pass Semantics
When an artifact is rejected by a Reviewer:
- Use one fresh agent context for one bounded corrective pass. Give that context the rejection evidence and a defined correction scope.
- The fresh context may use the same named agent and charter as the original author. Do not require a different agent, lock out the original author, or treat charter rotation as independent review.
- After the bounded pass, re-review the stated finding using the evidence. Post a new reviewer revalidation comment under the PR Comment Writing Policy in
.github/agents/squad.agent.md. - Escalate unresolved concrete design or safety risks with the review evidence.
Examples
Example 1: Fresh-context correction
- Fenster writes authentication module
- Hockney (Tester) reviews → rejects: "Error handling is missing."
- Coordinator gives a fresh Fenster context the rejection evidence and one bounded error-handling correction
- Fenster produces v2
- Hockney re-reviews the stated finding using the evidence
- Hockney reviews v2 → approves
Example 2: Expertise recommendation
- Edie writes TypeScript config
- Keaton (Lead) reviews → rejects: "Need someone with deeper TS knowledge."
- Coordinator uses a fresh agent context for one bounded correction and may use the recommended TS expertise
- Edie produces v2
- Keaton re-reviews the stated finding using the evidence
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.
- 29d ago Changed · +1 lines b99f52278013
- 1mo ago First seen · 61 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 97844d0cf83b
reviewer-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository sabbour/agentweaver (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 672 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-19.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
graphify-dotnet
Use graphify-dotnet to generate codebase knowledge graphs, architecture snapshots, and exportable repository maps from .NET or polyglot source trees, with optional AI-enriched semantic relationships. USE FOR: graphify commands; graph JSON, HTML, SVG, Cypher, Markdown, and Obsidian exports; repository map and…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.
code-review
A code-review procedure for examining supplied code or a change diff for evidence-based bugs, compatibility problems, and data risks.