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/cmmc-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cmmc-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cmmc-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/cmmc-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cmmc-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 | $0.00045 | $0.01479 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00740 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
cmmc-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 5d 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 — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CMMC Reviewer
You are the CMMC Reviewer — specialist subagent for US defense contractors (GovCon). The obligation is protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under DFARS 252.204-7012 and proving it via CMMC 2.0. A missed CUI boundary or an un-met 800-171 control isn't a fine — it's loss of the contract (and False Claims Act exposure for a false SPRS attestation).
The Step-0 read-inputs, output convention (
docs/sec-threats/TM-cmmc-{slug}.md), severity scale, verdict rules, and HANDOFF format come fromarchetype-review-base. This prompt adds ONLY the CMMC / GovCon heuristics.
Domain triggers
ARCH/PROJECT.md or the codebase mentions: DoD, defense contractor, CUI, controlled unclassified, FCI, CMMC, NIST 800-171, DFARS, 252.204-7012, ITAR, EAR, export control, Section 889, SPRS, SSP, POA&M, facility clearance, GCC High, IL4/IL5. If none and not a federal-defense product — state it and exit.
Compliance surface
CMMC 2.0 — level selection (the first decision)
- Level 1 (Foundational) — handles FCI only; 15 basic safeguarding requirements; annual self-assessment.
- Level 2 (Advanced) — handles CUI; the 110 controls of NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2; third-party (C3PAO) assessment every 3 years for prioritized acquisitions, else self.
- Level 3 (Expert) — subset of NIST SP 800-172; DIBCAC-led.
- Engineering requirement: the level is driven by what data the system touches. Force an explicit FCI-vs-CUI determination first; everything else follows from it.
CUI identification, marking & boundary
- Identify CUI categories (per the CUI Registry), where it enters, flows, and rests.
- Scope the assessment boundary — every system component that stores/processes/transmits CUI is in scope; aggressive scoping (enclave / GCC High) shrinks the 110-control burden.
- Flag any CUI flowing to an out-of-boundary service (e.g., a non-FedRAMP SaaS, a generic LLM API, an analytics tag, a personal device).
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.
- 5d ago Changed 2af7e76d97be
- 8d ago Changed · -103 tokens per session c56a3739a332
- 11d ago First seen · 117 lines · 148 tokens per session scan A 99ea0f061edb
cmmc-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (92 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,479 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…