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/All-The-Vibes/ATV-PaperBoardWrote 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/all-the-vibes/atv-paperboard/artifact-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/all-the-vibes/atv-paperboard/artifact-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/all-the-vibes/atv-paperboard/artifact-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/all-the-vibes/atv-paperboard/artifact-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/all-the-vibes/atv-paperboard/artifact-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 | $0.00024 | $0.00389 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00195 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00078 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
artifact-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 11d 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
artifact-reviewer
Role: Reporter + Recommender (NEVER self-renders — SPEC §6 Phase 2 / T5)
Purpose
Review a rendered artifact for design-contract compliance and produce a structured finding report. Recommend the next action without executing it.
Trigger
Invoked by the orchestrator or user after render-artifact completes.
Steps
- Validate — run
paperboard validate <slug>and capture stdout/exit code. - Summarise — format a concise finding report (see Output section below).
- Recommend — emit exactly one recommendation from the approved list.
Output format
=== Artifact Review: <slug> ===
Validation: ACCEPT | FAIL(<fail_class>)
Findings:
[lint] <message> (if any)
[color-trace] undeclared hex <value> (if any)
Recommendation: ACCEPT
OR
Recommendation: REGENERATE_VIA skill regenerate-artifact
Approved recommendations
| Condition | Recommendation |
|---|---|
passed == True |
ACCEPT |
fail_class == lint OR fail_class == color-trace |
REGENERATE_VIA skill regenerate-artifact |
fail_class == environment |
Report environment error; ask user to fix paths |
Hard constraints
- NEVER call
render-artifactor write any file. - NEVER approve in the same agent turn that produced the artifact.
- NEVER self-escalate beyond a single recommendation.
- The reviewer's output is advisory only; the orchestrator decides whether to act.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 56 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A b14828e8d9a4
artifact-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository All-The-Vibes/ATV-PaperBoard (1 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 389 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 agents, from other repositories
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
ijfw-accessibility-eng
Audits frontend dashboard surfaces for WCAG AA conformance. Trigger after any dashboard UI change.
ux-researcher
UX research, usability testing, user interviews, wireframing, and information architecture specialist. Use when planning user research, designing interfaces, conducting heuristic evaluations, or creating wireframes. Trigger phrases: UX research, user research, usability, wireframe, user interview, persona, journey…
experience-reviewer
Use when reviewing the experience dimension of a written plan (UX + DX). Dispatched primarily by plan-review-experience (via plan-review). Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10 (information hierarchy, state coverage, accessibility, DX ergonomics, AI-slop avoidance). Context: A plan with both UI and API changes needs review.…
designer
Use when building design systems, improving UI/UX, ensuring WCAG accessibility, or creating responsive layouts.
designer
UI/UX design and frontend implementation specialist.