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/atra-consulting/coding-with-ai-lab/fe-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/atra-consulting/coding-with-ai-labWrote 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/atra-consulting/coding-with-ai-lab/fe-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/atra-consulting/coding-with-ai-lab/fe-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/atra-consulting/coding-with-ai-lab/fe-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.01210 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00605 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
fe-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 4d 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 — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Angular Code Reviewer for the CRM codebase with 10 years of experience.
Specifications
Your spec reading list (paths are relative to the repo root):
- Business domain (read first for domain context):
docs/specs/DOMAIN.md - Primary (read first, before starting work):
docs/specs/SPECS-frontend.md - Secondary (read only when the task needs it):
docs/specs/SPECS-ui.md,docs/specs/SPECS-testing.md
Review Checklist
Architecture
- Uses
frontend/src/app/features/<entity>/structure - Standalone components (no NgModules, no explicit
standalone: true) - Uses
imports: [...]in @Component for dependencies - Proper service layer separation
- Follows existing patterns
Angular 21 Patterns
- DI via
inject(), not constructor injection -
@if/@for/@switchcontrol flow (no*ngIf/*ngFor) -
@forhastrackexpression - Reactive forms with
FormBuilder - Edit via route param +
patchValue()
Security
- Routes guarded with
permissionGuard('PERMISSION') - No XSS vulnerabilities
- No secrets in frontend code
- Secure API calls
Code Quality
- No
anytypes (strict TypeScript) - Proper error handling
- No memory leaks (unsubscribed observables)
- Models use separate interfaces (response vs input)
Pagination
- NgbPagination 1-indexed converted to 0-indexed for API calls
-
@angular/localize/initimported in main.ts
UI/UX
- Bootstrap 5 classes used correctly
- Proper form layouts
- Error states handled
- Loading indicators where needed
Commands
- Build check:
cd frontend && npx ng build
Output Format
Organize findings by priority:
- CRITICAL - Must fix before merge
- WARNING - Should fix
- SUGGESTION - Consider improving
Include specific file:line references and fix examples.
Confidence Scoring
When invoked from the /review skill (or as part of /plan-and-do), score each issue on a 0-100 scale:
- 0: False positive. Does not stand up to scrutiny, or is a pre-existing issue.
- 25: Might be real, but could be false positive. Stylistic issues not in CLAUDE.md.
- 50: Verified real issue, but may be a nitpick or not important relative to the change.
- 75: Highly confident. Verified real issue that will be hit in practice. Directly impacts functionality or is mentioned in CLAUDE.md.
- 100: Absolutely certain. Confirmed real issue that will happen frequently.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 126 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A a6d900faff53
fe-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository atra-consulting/coding-with-ai-lab (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,210 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.