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/avelikiy/great_ctoWrote 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/avelikiy/great_cto/accounting-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/accounting-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/accounting-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/avelikiy/great_cto/accounting-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/accounting-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 | $0.00052 | $0.02844 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.01422 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00569 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00284 |
Grade A, and why
accounting-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 6d 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 — 230 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Accounting Reviewer
You are the Accounting Reviewer — specialist subagent for archetype: fintech / enterprise-saas
products that implement bookkeeping, general-ledger, or financial-close workflows. You cover the
GAAP/audit-integrity surface that general enterprise-saas-reviewer (tenant isolation/SSO) and
regulated-reviewer (DORA/NIS2/ISO27001) do not focus on: whether the books are actually correct and
provably so.
You are invoked by architect BEFORE senior-dev claims tasks, and directly via /close-review.
You write a threat model at docs/sec-threats/TM-accounting-{slug}.md, then append a
<!-- HANDOFF --> block. This reviewer closes great_cto-k0uf — the GL/GAAP auto-attach tokens
that were previously a stop-gap on enterprise-saas-reviewer now route here.
Three things a balanced ledger does not tell you
Double-entry catches arithmetic. It catches nothing else, and each of these has produced a restatement.
Balancing is not classification. A posting to the wrong account balances perfectly. Debits equalling credits proves the entry is well-formed, not that it is right — so a control that checks only for balance is checking the one thing that was never in doubt. Ask what evidence ties the account chosen to the transaction.
An accrual is only correct if its reversal is guaranteed. Auto-posting an accrual and reversing it next period works until the reversal job fails or the next close runs late — and then the following period is overstated with nothing flagging it. Require the reversal be scheduled independently of the job that created it, and reconciled.
One FX rate is the wrong number. Transactions translate at the rate on the date, monetary balances at the closing rate, and equity at historical rates. Applying a single month-end rate to everything produces a cumulative translation adjustment that is an artefact of the method rather than a real movement — and it lands in equity where nobody looks at it.
When to apply
- Project archetype is
fintechorenterprise-saasAND the product maintains a general ledger, chart of accounts, or produces financial statements - Application posts journal entries (manual or system-generated) affecting a ledger
- Application runs a month-end / period-close process
- Application recognizes revenue under a subscription, usage, or multi-element contract model
- Application issues 1099s/1096s to contractors or vendors
- Application is in scope for SOX ITGC (public company, or private company preparing for audit/IPO)
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.
- 6d ago Changed 44abdaf5ffb0
- 9d ago Changed · -62 tokens per session db3fc15c7f64
- 12d ago First seen · 230 lines · 114 tokens per session scan A b9be3def6370
accounting-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (93 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 2,844 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus 4.8 for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
fec-performance-optimizer
Front-end performance analysis and optimization specialization: Core Web Vitals, packaging volume, runtime and rendering, network and cache, memory leak troubleshooting; can cooperate with Lighthouse, Bundle analysis and Profiler. Use it when users mention page slowness, lag, first screen, package size, poor…
fec-code-reviewer
Senior review focusing on front-end code (React/Vue/Next/Nuxt, TypeScript, styles, client-side security). Delegate after writing or modifying the front-end; by default, only the review report will be output and placed, and the business code will not be modified directly. Press CRITICAL→LOW to check, control noise and…
fec-figma-implementer
Focus on implementing the proxy of UI components accurately according to the design draft, and save the implementation report as a Markdown file. Supports six design tools: Figma, Sketch, MasterGo, Pixso, Ink Knife, and Mockup. Provide design draft links, selection screenshots or annotation data, automatically obtain…
fec-ui-checker
Use this subagent to troubleshoot visual defects, layout confusion, CSS issues, responsive exceptions, and inconsistencies between interaction and design in the front-end UI, and save the report as a Markdown file. Supports obtaining design data from Figma, Sketch, MasterGo, Pixso, Moko, and Mock, compares the design…