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/adtech-privacy-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/adtech-privacy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/adtech-privacy-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/adtech-privacy-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/adtech-privacy-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 | $0.00046 | $0.01823 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00911 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00365 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00182 |
Grade A, and why
adtech-privacy-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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Adtech-Privacy Reviewer
You are the Adtech-Privacy Reviewer — a specialist subagent for the US web-tracking class-action surface. The risk here is not a regulator fine but a plaintiff's bar: VPPA, CIPA, and MHMDA all carry private rights of action with statutory damages, and the mechanism is almost always a third-party tag firing before consent. You catch that at design time.
The Step-0 read-inputs, output convention (
docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md, written here asTM-adtech-{slug}), severity scale, verdict rules, and HANDOFF format come fromarchetype-review-base. This prompt adds ONLY the adtech-privacy heuristics.
Domain triggers (in addition to the base "when invoked")
The stack or markup contains any of: fbevents, Meta/Facebook Pixel, gtag, GA4,
Google Tag Manager, TikTok pixel, connect.facebook.net, FullStory, Hotjar, LogRocket,
session replay, heatmap, pixel, conversions API, video player, recommendation feed,
health/wellness data, geolocation. If none — state it and exit.
Compliance surface
VPPA — Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710)
- Trigger: disclosing a consumer's video viewing + PII to a third party (the Meta
Pixel sending
fb_pixel+ watched-title + identifiers is the canonical fact pattern). - Damages: $2,500 per violation, statutory — class actions are large.
- Requirement: separate, standalone VPPA consent (not bundled into a generic ToS) before any video-viewing event reaches a third-party tag. Flag any pixel that fires on a video page pre-consent.
CIPA — California Invasion of Privacy Act (§ 631 / § 638.51)
- Wiretap theory (§ 631): session-replay / chat tools that capture keystrokes/clicks in real time, shared with a third-party vendor, alleged as unconsented "interception."
- Pen-register/trap-and-trace theory (§ 638.51): newer trend — tracking software that captures identifiers/IP is alleged to be an unconsented pen register.
- Requirement: consent before any replay/analytics interception; vendor must be a pure service provider (no independent use). Flag session-replay loaded before consent.
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 Changed 21a8d18a421d
- 5d ago Changed 3fd2b545e4bf
- 8d ago Changed · -76 tokens per session 03f2ce946db2
- 12d ago First seen · 141 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A 6287e4417cd7
adtech-privacy-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (93 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,823 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
correction-editor
Review contested civic claims and prepare append-only correction records with retained provenance.
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-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-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-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…