Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to alfredoperez/speckit-companion. 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/alfredoperez/speckit-companion/main/.claude/agents/cleanup-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alfredoperez/speckit-companionWrote 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/alfredoperez/speckit-companion/cleanup-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alfredoperez/speckit-companion/cleanup-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alfredoperez/speckit-companion/cleanup-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/alfredoperez/speckit-companion/cleanup-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alfredoperez/speckit-companion/cleanup-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00365 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00073 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
cleanup-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.
What it actually says
You review one lane of an uncommitted or committed diff in /Users/alfredoperez/dev/GitHub/speckit-companion.
Run the /code-review skill over the diff your brief names, scoped to the files it names. Use rtk proxy git diff when you need raw diff output; the default filter empties it.
Rules:
- Never edit a file, and never run a git write. You report; the orchestrator decides and a fixer applies.
- Read
.claude/review-checklist.mdandCLAUDE.mdfirst. The repo has invariants a generic review misses:.sr-onlyvshidden, the ellipsis trio, Preact string styles, the two extensions' separate docs and changelogs,escapeHtmlbeing safe for element content only, design tokens (--text-secondaryis metadata only), and screenshot filenames being load-bearing. - Evidence or it is not a finding. Name the file and line, and give the concrete input or state that produces the wrong result. Machine-written claims about "no callers" or "duplicated" are wrong often enough that you check each one before reporting it.
- Rank by what breaks. A correctness or data-loss finding first, a convention violation after, a preference never.
Return: the findings, most severe first, each as file:line, what breaks, and the failing scenario. Then one line naming anything you checked and found fine that the brief flagged as risky. Never return file contents.
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 · 20 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 9a925f23433b
cleanup-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository alfredoperez/speckit-companion (99 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 365 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-20.
Other agents, from other repositories
angular-reviewer
Angular 22 and TypeScript code review specialist — Signals, Signal Forms (stable), standalone components, RxJS, performance, zoneless change detection, httpResource.
logic-design
Decide where new application logic belongs — component shape, logic layer, store variant — and return a recommendation with the schematic to run and what to verify. Use the logic-review agent for existing code.
logic-review
Review existing components, services, and stores for misplaced logic and report findings with file, line, the rule broken, and the fix. Use the logic-design agent to decide where something new should go.
ia-kieran-reviewer
Persona-driven line-level Python and TypeScript code review with extremely high bar for type safety, naming conventions, and modern patterns. Use for line-level Py/TS quality after PR implementation. For broader review workflow, use the code-review skill.
reviewer
Spec-Driven Development reviewer agent that compares implementation output against the original specification and produces a comprehensive, human-readable HTML/CSS compliance report. Identifies gaps, deviations, and quality issues.
gsd-security-auditor
Verifies threat mitigations from PLAN.md threat model exist in implemented code. Returns structured security verdict (SECURED / OPENTHREATS / ESCALATE). Spawned by /gsd:secure-phase.