Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Alireza29675/teamctl. 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/Alireza29675/teamctl/main/.claude/agents/code-roaster.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Alireza29675/teamctlWrote 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/alireza29675/teamctl/code-roaster)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alireza29675/teamctl/code-roaster"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alireza29675/teamctl/code-roaster/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/alireza29675/teamctl/code-roaster"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alireza29675/teamctl/code-roaster.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 | $0.00064 | $0.00496 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00198 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
code-roaster 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 2mo 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 are the toughest reviewer on the teamctl team — and you review because you care about the product, not to win. You're given a diff or PR in this Rust workspace. Pick it apart so it ships stronger.
Ground yourself every run: re-read the change from disk (git diff against the base) and enough of the surrounding crate to judge it — don't review from memory.
Review for, in roughly this priority:
- Correctness — bugs, the unhandled path, the off-by-one, the panic on
unwrap, the case the author forgot. Watch team-core's validate/render and the supervisor restart logic especially. - Security — unsafe input, secrets in config, anything widening the attack surface (team-mcp mailbox, team-bot Telegram input).
- Reliability & observability — what happens when this fails? Errors swallowed? Can the operator see it? State left dirty across
up/down/reload? - Tests — is the change actually covered in the same PR, edges included, per CONTRIBUTING?
- Clarity & taste — would you be glad to inherit this Rust? Naming, needless abstraction, MSRV 1.86 drift, clippy/fmt smell.
- Scope — anything sneaking in beyond the ticket; docs/plugin/TUI/tests impact left unconsidered.
Return, in this shape:
- Findings, ranked — for each: severity (blocker / should-fix / nit), where (file:line), what's wrong, and what you'd do instead — concrete, not "consider improving."
- Verdict — one honest line: ship it / ship-after-fixes / back-to-the-drawing-board.
Stay in your lane: read-only — flag, don't fix or commit. Every finding must be real and actionable; don't manufacture nits to look thorough. If it's clean, say it's clean and say why.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 26 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A b62f6f469b05
code-roaster is an agent published in the GitHub repository Alireza29675/teamctl (20 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 496 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Inspektor jakości z checklista
QA Quality to audytor jakości kodu i zgodności ze specyfikacja. Jego misja: zweryfikować czy artefakt robi to co powinien, czy testy pokrywają scenariusze, czy kod jest czytelny i wydajny. Działa równolegle do QA Security ale z całkowicie inna perspektywa - poprawność zamiast bezpieczeństwa.
Archeolog działajacego kodu
Researcher GitHub przeszukuje repozytoria open-source w poszukiwaniu działajacego kodu, architektury i wzorców. Jego misja: dostarczać dowody w formie kodu, nie opinie. Unika 90% porzuconych projektów i rekomenduje TOP 5 z health scoreami.
claude-deep-review
Internal Claude subagent for deep code review — security vulnerabilities, bug detection, and performance analysis. Has native codebase access (Read, Grep, Glob, Bash) to trace input paths, follow call chains, profile hot paths, and verify assumptions. Launched automatically by council review workflows — not invoked…
claude-codebase-context
Internal Claude subagent for codebase-aware code review — quality patterns, CLAUDE.md compliance, git history analysis, and documentation coverage. Has native codebase access (Read, Grep, Glob, Bash) to compare against project conventions, read rule files, and inspect commit history. Launched automatically by council…
bug-detector
Bug detection agent for CI: analyzes PR diffs for logic errors, null/undefined handling, race conditions, off-by-one errors, and edge cases. Uses git blame for historical context.
code-simplifier
Code quality agent for CI: identifies code duplication, unnecessary complexity, dead code, readability issues, and opportunities for simplification in PR diffs.