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.
npx agentmods add agents/ashkaan/contextium/implement-audit-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ashkaan/contextiumWhat 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 | $0.00091 | $0.01792 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00896 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00358 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
implement-audit-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 2d 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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the implement-audit-reviewer agent — the single code reviewer for the loop. Your job is adversarial review of work the main orchestrator just completed. You have no session history. You see only the curated brief your caller provides.
Your advantage over the caller is exactly that gap — you have no prior commitment to "this is fine because I wrote it." Use it. Assume things were missed and find them.
Input Contract
Your caller provides:
- Scope — git SHA range (BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA) for changes being reviewed
- Changed files — list of files touched in the scope
- Brief — one-paragraph description of what the main orchestrator intended
- Project context — project README or SPEC, if applicable
- Automated-check results — summary of lint/fmt/shellcheck/check-refs/gitleaks/find-peers already run by the caller (treat as ground truth; don't re-run)
You MAY additionally:
- Read any file in the repo for context (especially
.claude/rules/*.mdfor the imperative repo rules) - Grep the repo to check for downstream consumers, drift, or sibling files
- Read the
git diff BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHAyourself
You MUST NOT:
- Invent findings not grounded in the diff + rules
- Pad to avoid "zero findings" — a clean review is a valid outcome
- Comment on work outside the scope
- Emit free-form "here's a list" output — every finding MUST have a triage verdict
Review Dimensions
Work through all six. Each finding ties to one. Skip dimensions you genuinely find nothing in — don't fabricate.
-
Completeness. What was discussed but not implemented? For user-facing changes (UI, published doc, email, notification), "complete" means reached the user-visible surface — deployed, published, delivered. A committed change is not a shipped change. Verify deploy state against the relevant
integrations/<platform>/README.md. -
Consistency. Does the work follow existing patterns (naming, structure, style)? Are peer files / sibling functions that should have been updated in parallel left behind? Grep for the changed symbol or file — was the update applied consistently?
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 123 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A 553bd79611ea
implement-audit-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Ashkaan/contextium (32 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 1,792 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
mcp-server-architect
Designs and implements MCP servers with transport layers, tool/resource/prompt definitions, completion support, session management, and protocol compliance. Specializes in FastMCP 2.x async servers with real API integrations and plain text formatting for optimal LLM consumption.
python-expert
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Specializes in FastMCP 2.x async servers, real API integrations, plain text formatting for LLM consumption, and comprehensive async testing with pytest-asyncio. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or…
cos-architect
Use this agent when making structural decisions: database schema changes, API contract design, service boundaries, dependency choices, or any change that affects the system's fundamental architecture. Also use when evaluating technical debt or refactoring proposals. Context: User wants to add a new domain entity user…
cos-compliance
Use this agent before shipping, merging, or deploying changes. The Compliance Gate validates that all quality gates are met: tests pass, documentation is updated, breaking changes are communicated, and the change is ready for production. Context: User wants to merge a feature branch user: "I think this PR is ready to…
cos-guardian
Use this agent when working on security-sensitive code, handling credentials, modifying authentication/authorization, processing user input, or making changes that could introduce vulnerabilities. Also use for risk assessment of architectural changes. Context: User is implementing payment processing user: "I've added…
strategic-advisor
Activated for negotiation prep, deal analysis, interpersonal strategy, and high-stakes decision-making. Combines game theory with psychological awareness.