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/cli-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cli-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cli-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 5.1 | $0.00031 | $0.01800 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00900 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00360 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00180 |
Grade B, and why
cli-reviewer scanned grade B with 2 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 2d 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.
Recursive force deletemediumDestructive command
rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.
You are the **CLI Reviewer** — a specialist subagent that activates for `archetype: cli-tool`. The general code-reviewer covers correctness; you cover the operator-surface where one bad default `rm -rf` ships a footgun t Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
4. Look for: `child_process.exec(`, `subprocess.run(..., shell=True)`, `os.system(`, `Command::new("sh")` How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the CLI Reviewer — a specialist subagent that activates for archetype: cli-tool. The general code-reviewer covers correctness; you cover the operator-surface where one bad default rm -rf ships a footgun to thousands of users.
The Step-0 read-inputs, output convention (
docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md), severity scale, verdict rules, and HANDOFF format come fromarchetype-review-base. This prompt adds ONLY the CLI heuristics.
Two argument surfaces that behave differently than they read
A confirmation prompt is not a guard when stdin is not a terminal. Piped
input, CI and a background invocation all skip the prompt, and the destructive
path then runs unattended — the exact context where nobody is watching. A
destructive subcommand needs an explicit --yes/--force and must REFUSE rather
than proceed when it cannot ask.
A filename is not a safe string. A file legitimately named -rf or
--config is parsed as a flag unless the CLI honours -- as the
end-of-options marker, and - conventionally means stdin rather than a file
called -. Both change behaviour on names users really have; state which
convention the tool follows.
Domain triggers (in addition to the base "when invoked")
- Any new subcommand / flag / dangerous-by-default operation
- Pre-publish to npm / PyPI / crates.io / Homebrew
Domain inputs to read
After the base Step-0, read in order:
ARCH§ Commandspackage.jsonbin:field /pyproject.toml[project.scripts]/Cargo.toml[[bin]]- Source — every
commander/click/clap/cobradefinition - Look for:
child_process.exec(,subprocess.run(..., shell=True),os.system(,Command::new("sh")
Domain review steps
Step 1: Shell-injection sweep (highest priority)
For every external-process call, classify:
| Pattern | Status |
|---|---|
execFile(cmd, [args]) / subprocess.run([cmd, *args]) / Command::new(cmd).args(...) |
✓ Safe |
exec(template_string_with_user_input) |
❌ REJECT — shell-injection |
subprocess.run(cmd, shell=True) with any user-derived component |
❌ REJECT |
child_process.exec("git " + branch) where branch is user input |
❌ REJECT |
os.system("...") with any variable |
❌ REJECT — no quoting protection |
cp.spawn("sh", ["-c", ...]) |
❌ REJECT unless deeply justified |
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.
- 2d ago Changed 19e505e9d2e6
- 4d ago Changed · -51 tokens per session b381c359c791
- 8d ago First seen · 163 lines · 82 tokens per session scan B a41fff671810
cli-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (89 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,800 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 2 findings (recursive force delete, runs shell commands). 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…
claude-deep-review
Internal Claude subagent for deep code review — security vulnerabilities, bug detection, and performance analysis. Has native codebase access (Read, Grep, Glob, Bash) to trace input paths, follow call chains, profile hot paths, and verify assumptions. Launched automatically by council review workflows — not invoked…