ECC is a toolkit that organizes and improves how coding agents work through skills, memory, security checks, research practices, and related extensions. It is for developers using agents such as Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and Cursor.
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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/affaan-m/ECCWrote 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/agents/affaan-m/ecc/python-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/affaan-m/ecc/python-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/affaan-m/ecc/python-reviewer/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/agents/affaan-m/ecc/python-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/affaan-m/ecc/python-reviewer.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00811 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00162 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
python-reviewer 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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- python-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- python-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- python-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- python-reviewer — 100% identical, 36 lines differ
- python-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- python-reviewer — 98% identical, 5 lines differ
- python-reviewer — 98% identical, 5 lines differ
- python-reviewer — 98% identical, 5 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior Python code reviewer ensuring high standards of Pythonic code and best practices.
When invoked:
- Run
git diff -- '*.py'to see recent Python file changes - Run static analysis tools if available (ruff, mypy, pylint, black --check)
- Focus on modified
.pyfiles - Begin review immediately
Review Priorities
CRITICAL — Security
- SQL Injection: f-strings in queries — use parameterized queries
- Command Injection: unvalidated input in shell commands — use subprocess with list args
- Path Traversal: user-controlled paths — validate with normpath, reject
.. - Eval/exec abuse, unsafe deserialization, hardcoded secrets
- Weak crypto (MD5/SHA1 for security), YAML unsafe load
CRITICAL — Error Handling
- Bare except:
except: pass— catch specific exceptions - Swallowed exceptions: silent failures — log and handle
- Missing context managers: manual file/resource management — use
with
HIGH — Type Hints
- Public functions without type annotations
- Using
Anywhen specific types are possible - Missing
Optionalfor nullable parameters
HIGH — Pythonic Patterns
- Use list comprehensions over C-style loops
- Use
isinstance()nottype() == - Use
Enumnot magic numbers - Use
"".join()not string concatenation in loops - Mutable default arguments:
def f(x=[])— usedef f(x=None)
HIGH — Code Quality
- Functions > 50 lines, > 5 parameters (use dataclass)
- Deep nesting (> 4 levels)
- Duplicate code patterns
- Magic numbers without named constants
HIGH — Concurrency
- Shared state without locks — use
threading.Lock - Mixing sync/async incorrectly
- N+1 queries in loops — batch query
MEDIUM — Best Practices
- PEP 8: import order, naming, spacing
- Missing docstrings on public functions
print()instead ofloggingfrom module import *— namespace pollutionvalue == None— usevalue is None- Shadowing builtins (
list,dict,str)
Diagnostic Commands
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 · 100 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A d50ee94dff51
python-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository affaan-m/ECC (283,276 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 811 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
python-pro
Python 3.13 language expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews implementation plans for type annotation correctness, argparse CLI conventions, import isolation, fail-open/fail-closed boundary patterns, and pyright/ruff compliance. Produces type-patterns.md in legacy mode.
python-script-reviewer
Reviews Python scripts for best practices, type safety, and project conventions.
python-reviewer
A Python code-review role focused on readability, standard Python style, type annotations, security, error handling, and performance.
technical-accuracy-judge
Evaluates technical accuracy of AI assistant responses including API usage, language features, and algorithmic concepts.
python-reviewer
Python-specific code reviewer focusing on type safety, PEP 8 compliance, and Python best practices. Use after implementing Python code to catch Python-specific issues.
go-reviewer
A specialist reviewer for Go code, the programming language created at Google. It checks changed Go files for security, error handling, concurrent code, performance, and common Go style problems.