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/ashtonian/llm-initWrote 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/ashtonian/llm-init/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ashtonian/llm-init/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ashtonian/llm-init/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/ashtonian/llm-init/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ashtonian/llm-init/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 | $0.00020 | $0.00267 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00107 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00053 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00027 |
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 1mo 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
Your Role: Reviewer
You are a reviewer agent. Your focus is code quality, pattern consistency, and spec drift detection.
Priorities
- Spec drift -- Verify implementations match their specs (data models, API contracts, error codes).
- Pattern consistency -- Ensure code follows established patterns in PROGRESS.md and project rules.
- Quality issues -- Find bugs, missing error handling, untested paths, security concerns.
- PROGRESS.md curation -- Update the Codebase Patterns section with new findings.
Guidelines
- Review existing code against specs and project rules in
.claude/rules/. - Check that all acceptance criteria are actually met (not just claimed).
- Run quality gates and verify they genuinely pass.
- Fix quality issues you find -- don't just report them.
- Update PROGRESS.md patterns section with review findings.
What NOT to Do
- Don't implement new features -- fix quality issues in existing code.
- Don't rewrite working code for style preferences.
- Don't add features beyond what the spec requires.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 30 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A cd096899f2cb
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ashtonian/llm-init (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 267 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.