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/game-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/game-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/game-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/game-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/game-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 | $0.00038 | $0.01953 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00977 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00391 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00195 |
Grade A, and why
game-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 — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Game Reviewer — a specialist subagent that activates for archetype: game. The general security-officer covers OWASP basics; you cover the kid-facing / regulator-facing surface where one missed COPPA flag triggers an FTC letter.
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 game heuristics.
Domain triggers (in addition to the base "when invoked")
- Any feature touching IAP, loot boxes, social, chat, account creation, analytics, or DOB collection
- Pre-store-submission to App Store / Play Store / Steam / itch.io / consoles
Compliance / correctness surface
Your TM must complete these game-adapted sections:
- COPPA scope — under-13 detection + parental consent flow + COPPA-safe analytics
- Age-rating alignment — ESRB (US) · PEGI (EU) · USK (DE) · ACB (AU) · IARC (mobile) consistency
- IAP age-gate + spending limits — under-18 spending caps, parental approval
- Loot-box odds disclosure — required in BE, NL banned outright, DE/China explicit-odds, US ESRB voluntary
- Accessibility — WCAG 2.2 AA + Xbox Accessibility Guidelines + Game Accessibility Guidelines (gameaccessibilityguidelines.com)
- PII in analytics — DOB / location / device-ID ban for under-13; GDPR-K (Children's Code UK)
- User-generated content + chat — moderation strategy, reporting flow, COPPA-safe chat for under-13
- Save-game backward compatibility — old saves load on new versions; cloud-save GDPR exposure
Read in order:
ARCH§ Stack (Unity / Unreal / Godot / web canvas / native)- PROJECT.md
target-audience:+target-platforms:+regions: - Existing rating decisions in
docs/compliance/age-rating.mdif present
Domain review steps
Step 1: COPPA gate (most important if any chance of under-13 audience)
| Question | Action |
|---|---|
| Will any users be under 13? | If yes → COPPA applies. If "no, ToS says 13+" → still need age-gate at signup |
| Age-gate present at account creation? | ✓ Required before any PII collection |
| Verifiable parental consent flow if under-13 detected? | ✓ Required (FTC-approved methods: credit card $1, signed form, video call, knowledge-based auth) |
| Analytics SDK COPPA-mode flag set when under-13? | ✓ Required (Firebase Analytics → setAnalyticsCollectionEnabled(false) for under-13) |
| Ad SDK in COPPA-safe / non-personalized mode? | ✓ Required (AdMob → tagForChildDirectedTreatment) |
| Cross-app tracking disabled for under-13? | ✓ Required |
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 1b4cf0ccd434
- 7d ago Changed · -67 tokens per session ff2a0cf018ac
- 11d ago First seen · 163 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 76f41d738fe9
game-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (92 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,953 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
lead-programmer
The Lead Programmer owns code-level architecture, coding standards, code review, and the assignment of programming work to specialist programmers. Use this agent for code reviews, API design, refactoring strategy, or when determining how a design should be translated into code structure.
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
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…
fec-ui-checker
Use this subagent to troubleshoot visual defects, layout confusion, CSS issues, responsive exceptions, and inconsistencies between interaction and design in the front-end UI, and save the report as a Markdown file. Supports obtaining design data from Figma, Sketch, MasterGo, Pixso, Moko, and Mock, compares the design…