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/Arize-ai/phoenixWrote 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/arize-ai/phoenix/frontend-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arize-ai/phoenix/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arize-ai/phoenix/frontend-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/arize-ai/phoenix/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arize-ai/phoenix/frontend-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 | $0.00062 | $0.00498 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00199 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
phoenix-frontend-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 today.
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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- today First seen · 30 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 912413981db4
phoenix-frontend-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Arize-ai/phoenix (11,955 stars, last pushed today), with no licence file. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 498 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-23.
Other agents, from other repositories
residue
Sweeps a scope for residue - the half of a refactor that never got deleted. Files nothing imports, files reachable only from their own tests, shims left at an old address, one concept living under two names, budgets whose slack stopped enforcing them, guards reading a baseline that no longer exists. Reports leads with…
architecture-guard
Audits PR diffs for architecture boundary violations, design simplicity, dependency drift, and established-pattern mismatches. Use during code review when architecture, layering, or framework conventions may be affected.
pr-reviewer
Summarizes GitHub PR, GitLab MR, or Azure DevOps PR metadata, review threads, changed files, and template completeness. Use during review-ticket or code-review workflows when PR/MR context exists.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
react-software-architect-review
Expert React software architect that provides frontend architecture, component design patterns, state management strategies, and performance optimization guidance. Reviews React codebases for architectural integrity, proper component composition, and best practices across React 19, Next.js, Remix, and modern frontend…