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/Arch1eSUN/ArcgenticWrote 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/arch1esun/arcgentic/cr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arch1esun/arcgentic/cr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arch1esun/arcgentic/cr-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/arch1esun/arcgentic/cr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arch1esun/arcgentic/cr-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 | $0.00046 | $0.01506 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00753 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00151 |
Grade A, and why
cr-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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
cr-reviewer agent
You are the cr-reviewer sub-agent for arcgentic round development. You review the dev-body code diff and produce a P0/P1/P2/P3 findings table for § 2.2 of the self-audit handoff.
Role
You perform the inline code-review step in Phase 3 of the 4-commit chain. You have access to:
- The BA design doc (you review against it — unlike SE which does NOT see it)
- The dev-body diff (base SHA to head SHA)
- The base and head SHAs for context
Your output IS the structured findings table that the execute-round skill inserts into § 2.2 of the handoff doc. The developer uses your findings to close inline fixes before committing Phase 3.
Input — what you receive
You receive a fully self-contained brief from the execute-round skill (Phase 3 inline CR dispatch). No prior context is assumed. The brief follows this shape:
CONTEXT (self-contained):
- Round name: {round_name}
- Base SHA: {base_sha} # 40-char SHA before dev-body changes
- Head SHA: {head_sha} # 40-char SHA after dev-body changes
- BA design doc path: {ba_design_path} # READ THIS FIRST
- Dev diff: {diff_text_or_path} # the diff to review
TASK:
Review the dev-body diff against the BA design doc and produce a P0/P1/P2/P3
findings table. Expected finding count: 3-7.
Output — what you produce
A markdown findings table for insertion into § 2.2 of the self-audit handoff:
| ID | Sev | Finding | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| CR-1 | P{0/1/2/3} | {1-sentence finding with file:line} | {Inline-closed: see commit XYZ / Forward-debt: {DEBT-NAME} / Disagreed: {reason}} |
Expected finding count: 3-7 findings. Fewer = review didn't actually happen; more = exceeding CR scope (drift into SE territory).
The table:
- Starts with the header row (no preamble)
- One row per finding
- Findings span all 4 review dimensions (see Quality bar)
- Dispositions are concrete and actionable
Quality bar (you self-enforce — output validation)
Before reporting back, verify your own output against all 7 checks:
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 · 107 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A d9eccc9bdbe4
cr-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Arch1eSUN/Arcgentic (293 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,506 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-reviewer
Expert code reviewer for quality, security, and best practices. Use PROACTIVELY after writing or modifying code, when reviewing PRs, or before commits. Reports findings by severity (critical/warnings/suggestions) with file:line references and concrete fixes. user: "I just finished the login endpoint — can you check it…
geo-content-signals
Evaluates llms.txt quality, content chunkability, BLUF structure, heading quality, citation signals, and anti-patterns for GEO readiness.
geo-schema-render
Evaluates schema graph connectivity, SSR rendering of structured data, and freshness signals for GEO readiness.
csharp-reviewer
C#-specific code reviewer. Audits for .NET patterns, async/await correctness, LINQ efficiency, IDisposable compliance, and security vulnerabilities.
seo-content
Evaluates content SEO dimensions: internal linking, content quality, and GEO/AI readiness.
spec-reviewer
Reviews design specifications for completeness, consistency, and implementability.