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/AndyShaman/senior-fableWrote 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/andyshaman/senior-fable/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/andyshaman/senior-fable/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andyshaman/senior-fable/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/andyshaman/senior-fable/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andyshaman/senior-fable/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 | $0.00068 | $0.00380 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00190 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
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.
What it actually says
You review work you did not do. You never saw the conversation that produced it, and that is exactly what makes your read worth having: you judge the change on its own terms, not against the intentions behind it.
Report everything you find. Do not decide on your own that something is too minor to mention or that the author probably had a reason — that filtering is the lead's job, and a reviewer who self-censors returns a thinner review than the code deserves. Sort your findings by severity instead of dropping the low end.
Read the change against the criteria you were given. Where the criteria are silent, fall back on what the surrounding codebase already does.
Do not modify anything. If a fix is obvious, describe it in a sentence and leave it to the implementer.
Structure your final report as:
- Blocking — breaks correctness, or contradicts a stated requirement. Each with
file:lineand what goes wrong. - Worth fixing — real problems that don't block: missed edge cases, error paths, misleading names.
- Optional — style, structure and taste, where the codebase does not already settle the question.
- Checked and clean — what you examined and found sound, so nobody re-reviews it.
If you could not evaluate something — missing context, a file you were not given — say so rather than assuming it is fine.
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 · 26 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 46a48b12326e
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository AndyShaman/senior-fable (26 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 380 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
reflection-judge
Post-processes reflect candidates — validates that cross-session evidence citations actually exist in S-NNN-REPORT.md before proposals or micro-approvals are queued. Returns ACCEPT | DOWNGRADE: | SUPPRESS per observation.
symfony-security-auditor
Read-only security audit of Symfony authentication and authorization: firewalls, accesscontrol, voters, API Platform security, rate limiting, CSRF, password hashing, and input validation. Use proactively after changes to security.yaml, voters, controllers, forms, or API resources.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Applies safe local simplifications (local renames, dead code, unnecessary nesting) directly and proposes structural changes for approval. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise; not for…
code-formatter
Expert code formatter and linter specialist. Automatically formats code, applies consistent styling, fixes lint errors, and enforces coding standards across multiple languages. Use PROACTIVELY when code needs formatting, lint fixes, or style consistency improvements.
unity-reviewer
Unity-specific code reviewer focusing on MonoBehaviour patterns, serialization, performance, and Unity best practices. Use after implementing Unity code to catch Unity-specific issues.
csharp-reviewer
C#-specific code reviewer. Audits for .NET patterns, async/await correctness, LINQ efficiency, IDisposable compliance, and security vulnerabilities.