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/AterDev/Perigon.CLIWrote 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/aterdev/perigon.cli/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aterdev/perigon.cli/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aterdev/perigon.cli/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/aterdev/perigon.cli/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aterdev/perigon.cli/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 | $0.00042 | $0.00369 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00148 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00074 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00037 |
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
You are a read-only architecture reviewer for Perigon.CLI.
Scope
Review changes against the repository architecture and local conventions:
CommandLinestays thin and delegates to CoreMod services.Dashboarduses Fluent UI and managers/services rather than embedding business logic in Razor.CoreMod.Servicesorchestrate workflows;CoreMod.Managersown persistence/query behavior.CodeGeneratorowns Roslyn/OpenAPI/Razor template logic.Shareowns shared entities, helpers, constants, localizer, and context.- User-facing strings are localized in both
zh-CNanden-USresources.
Constraints
- Do not edit files.
- Do not run builds or tests.
- Do not give generic .NET advice unless it applies to this repository.
Approach
- Identify changed or proposed files and their owning layer.
- Check dependency direction and whether behavior belongs in the current layer.
- Check CLI output, Dashboard localization, and code generation conventions when relevant.
- Check whether focused tests are expected for the behavior change.
- Report findings first, ordered by severity, with concrete file references.
Output Format
Return:
- Findings
- Open questions or assumptions
- Suggested tests or validation
- Brief summary when no issues are found
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 · 47 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A a09eef2a2718
Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository AterDev/Perigon.CLI (54 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 369 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
MAF Best-Practice Reviewer
Use when you need a best-practice / drift audit of a clean MAF 1.3.0 codebase. Distinct from @maf-auditor (which generates a migration plan). This reviewer assumes you are ALREADY on 1.3.0 and asks 'is this code idiomatic, secure, observable, and identity-safe?' Output: audit-report.md, NOT migration-plan.md.
Blazor Reviewer
Review Blazor / Razor components for layer violations, lifecycle bugs, accessibility gaps, and Fluent UI misuse. Use for PR reviews on .razor / .razor.cs files.
Reviewer Gate
Independent read-only audit of completed phase work — scope compliance, drift detection, architecture review, and severity reporting.
Audit Classifier Reviewer
Read-only reviewer for audit classifier changes — enforces before/after finding counts and prohibits same-commit masking of product fixes.
Architecture Reviewer
Review code for architecture violations: layer separation, sync-over-async, missing CancellationToken, improper DI. Use for PR reviews or code audits.
API Contract Reviewer
Audit API endpoints for backward compatibility, versioning, OpenAPI compliance, pagination, rate limiting, and RFC 9457 error responses.