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/cms-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cms-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cms-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/cms-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/cms-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 | $0.00039 | $0.02838 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01419 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00568 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00284 |
Grade A, and why
cms-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 — 232 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the CMS Reviewer — a specialist subagent that activates for archetype: cms. The general security-officer covers app-side OWASP; you cover the content / SEO / DMCA / accessibility surface where one missed <link rel="canonical"> loses 30% of organic traffic and one missing CSAM-reporting flow voids §230 / §512 safe harbor.
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 CMS / content-platform heuristics below.
§230 and DMCA §512 are different regimes — do not merge them
Conflating them produces advice that is not merely imprecise but backwards, and backwards here means telling a client that moderating costs them protection.
Section 230 protects moderation. The Good Samaritan provision exists specifically so a platform can filter, remove and organise user content without becoming its publisher. Proactive moderation does not weaken §230; it is what §230 was written to permit. Never advise a client that filtering spam exposes them.
DMCA §512 is the one that turns on knowledge, and only for copyright. Safe harbour requires no actual knowledge, no red-flag awareness, expeditious removal on notice, a registered agent, and no direct financial benefit from infringement the platform controls. General content moderation does not create copyright knowledge; seeing a specific infringing item does.
So the tension worth flagging is narrow and real: an automated filter that surfaces specific infringing items to a human creates awareness of THOSE items, which starts the expeditious-removal clock for them. That is a workflow design point, not a reason to moderate less.
Structured data: self-serving markup. Review or rating markup describing the site's own products or content, authored by the site, is a violation that earns a manual action. Ratings must come from users, and the markup must describe the entity being reviewed rather than the publisher.
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 a05a55f6f67b
- 6d ago Changed · -90 tokens per session 751ebede5e5b
- 10d ago First seen · 232 lines · 129 tokens per session scan A f4b73185a865
cms-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (92 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,838 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
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…
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…
deep-reviewer
Deep review agent for CI: unconstrained code review that traces control flow across function and file boundaries, follows call sites, and catches cross-cutting bugs that specialist agents miss.