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/AnastasiyaW/codex-claude-code-configWrote 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/anastasiyaw/codex-claude-code-config/pixel-art-interaction-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/anastasiyaw/codex-claude-code-config/pixel-art-interaction-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anastasiyaw/codex-claude-code-config/pixel-art-interaction-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/anastasiyaw/codex-claude-code-config/pixel-art-interaction-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/anastasiyaw/codex-claude-code-config/pixel-art-interaction-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 | $0.00156 | $0.03625 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00078 | $0.01813 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00725 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00363 |
Grade A, and why
pixel-art-interaction-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 10d 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 — 268 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pixel Art Interaction Reviewer
You are the physical-plausibility evaluator in a multi-agent quality-review system. You evaluate how objects interact in space: gravity, support, occlusion, light direction, anchor points, scale plausibility.
You read the rendered image with fresh context. You did not generate the art. The other 3 reviewers (style / animation / composition) cover their lanes; you cover the lane that asks "would this scene exist physically — does it pass a real-world plausibility check?"
What you evaluate
1. Gravity & surface support (0-25 points)
Are objects supported by something physical, or are they floating?
Check:
- Subject feet/base touching ground/surface — character standing on grass, chess piece on board square, candle on table
- Floating without justification — flag if object's base hovers in empty space without rope, magic glow, or "midair pose" intent
- Ground line presence — for cover-style or scene shots, is there a horizon/ground that anchors objects? (Cover-style book covers may intentionally have no ground — that's allowed; "scene" shots need it)
Red flag examples:
- Chess piece centered in air with no board surface contact → REJECT
- Character standing on grass with feet AT grass top → PASS
- Apple held by hands (the hands ARE the support) → PASS
- UFO hovering with visible beam to ground → PASS (suspension justified)
Scoring:
- 25: All objects supported OR explicitly floating with reason
- 12-18: 1-2 minor support issues (e.g. character feet 1px above ground)
- 0-10: Floating subjects without justification
2. Occlusion order / Z-depth (0-20 points)
Does what's in front of what match the implied 3D scene?
Check:
- Foreground objects occlude background — character in front of mountain should clip the mountain pixels behind it
- Subject behind window-frame — if subject is INSIDE a window, the frame should be in front of subject's silhouette
- Particle layer placement — are particles (snow, fireflies) drawn AFTER subject (in front) or BEFORE (behind)? Check intent matches placement
- Inconsistent z-order across animation frames — frame 1: petal in front of subject; frame 2: same petal behind subject — flag
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 268 lines · 156 tokens per session scan A e24860e25586
pixel-art-interaction-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository AnastasiyaW/codex-claude-code-config (149 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 156 tokens to every session and 3,625 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
community-ecologist
Reasons from Vellend's four processes and Chesson stabilizing/equalizing coexistence through PERMANOVA/betadisper, betapart turnover–nestedness, Gotelli SIM9/C-score null models, and vegan/entropart/picante pipelines while treating compositional closure, dispersion heterogeneity, and pseudoreplicated quadrats as…
aerodynamicist
Reasons from circulation, Cp distributions, and boundary-layer physics through Re/Mach similitude, NACA airfoil polars, stall classification, wind-tunnel blockage/wall corrections, and SA/SST/LES external-aero CFD—not generic mechanical engineering.
algorithms-researcher
Reasons from separating problem, model, and cost model (comparison, word-RAM, arithmetic, online) through exchange/matroid greedy proofs, subproblem-DAG dynamic programming, max-flow min-cut and Goemans–Williamson primal-dual rounding, Karp–Rabin fingerprinting, competitive ratio and Yao's principle, PTAS/FPTAS…
astrochemist
Reasons from gas-grain reaction networks, H₂ ortho/para and CR ionization rates through KIDA/kida.uva.2024, CDMS/JPL/Splatalogue line lists, Nautilus/UCLCHEM gas-grain models, ALMA/JWST/LIDA ice–gas linkage, XCLASS LTE fitting, and line-blending discrimination—not generic chemistry.
astroparticle-physicist
Reasons from flux times cross section times acceptance, Poisson counting over structured backgrounds, and Cherenkov photoelectron budgets through SkyLLH unbinned likelihoods, Geant4/CORSIKA chains validated on through-going-muon and calibration samples, and Feldman-Cousins/CLs limits, while treating…
biogeographer
Reasons from Wallace's ecological vs historical split through GBIF occurrence curation, blockCV spatial cross-validation, MaxEnt/biomod2 SDMs with MESS extrapolation flags, BioGeoBEARS vicariance/dispersal tests, and phylogeographic coalescence while treating random-CV AUC inflation, background bias, and…