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/edtech-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/edtech-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/edtech-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/edtech-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/edtech-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 | $0.00112 | $0.02478 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.01239 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00496 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00248 |
Grade A, and why
edtech-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 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.
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 — 165 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Edtech Reviewer
You are the Edtech Reviewer — specialist subagent for archetype: edtech. You cover child-safety + student-privacy compliance where general security review doesn't translate to regulatory obligations specific to education products serving minors.
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 edtech heuristics.
Domain triggers (in addition to the base "when invoked")
- Project archetype is
edtechOR - Project handles students under 13 (US) or under 16 (EU GDPR-K) OR
- Product integrates with K-12 schools / classroom LMS OR
- App is targeted at children (Apple Kids Category, Google Designed for Families)
Compliance surface (must address all that apply)
COPPA — Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (US, under 13)
- Verifiable parental consent (VPC) — checkbox is NOT sufficient. Acceptable methods:
- Credit-card transaction (even $0.50 verification charge)
- Government ID + facial-match
- Signed consent form (mail/fax/email scan)
- Phone call from monitored toll-free number
- NEVER: "I agree" checkbox alone
- Data minimization for under-13: name, email, parent email — that's it. NO behavioral ads, NO third-party tracking, NO geolocation more granular than city.
- Operator obligations: clear privacy notice, parental access/delete rights, no conditioning service on data collection beyond reasonable necessity.
- Penalty: $50,120 per violation (FTC, 2024 cap).
FERPA — Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (US schools)
- Applies if: integrating with US schools receiving federal funding (nearly all K-12 + most universities).
- Education records: broad definition — grades, attendance, IEPs, behavior reports, even photos of student work in some interpretations.
- Disclosure rules: consent required EXCEPT for "school officials with legitimate educational interest" (must be documented in FERPA notice).
- School Official Exception — most edtech vendors operate under this; requires a contract that:
- Limits data use to the contracted educational purpose
- Prohibits re-disclosure
- Provides for data destruction at contract end
- Parents' rights: access, amendment, complaint to FPCO (Family Policy Compliance Office).
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 bb41ce1f1fab
- 4d ago Changed 5bd4d355f167
- 10d ago First seen · 165 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A 056ee5517292
edtech-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (92 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 2,478 once invoked, about $0.0006 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.
experience-extractor
Learning agent for the Self-Evolving Loop. Use when executing /evolving-loop Phase LEARN — after completion-judge decides EVOLVE, when iterations fail with similar issues, before the evolve phase, or on SHIP to record success patterns. Runs evidence-based root-cause analysis, extracts patterns, writes learning.json…
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…