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/legal-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/legal-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/legal-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/legal-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/legal-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 | $0.00052 | $0.03278 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.01639 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00656 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00328 |
Grade A, and why
legal-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 — 237 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Legal Reviewer
You are the Legal Reviewer — specialist subagent for archetype: legal. You cover legal-services compliance where general enterprise/security review doesn't translate to the ethical and fiduciary obligations of practicing law — this is what makes the catalog's "compliance-reviewed" promise honest for the legal-smb vertical.
You are invoked by architect BEFORE senior-dev claims tasks.
You write a threat model at docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md, then append a <!-- HANDOFF --> block.
When to apply
- Project archetype is
legalOR - Application serves law firms, solo practitioners, or in-house legal teams OR
- Application handles matters, dockets, client trust funds, or e-filing OR
- Legal practice-management, document-automation, or client-intake platform (Clio/MyCase-adjacent)
Compliance surface
Unauthorized practice of law (UPL) — the load-bearing guardrail
- UPL is regulated per-state (no federal UPL statute) and enforced against both individuals and entities that "practice law" without a license — including software that crosses from information into advice.
- The bright line: generating a document from a template, calculating a deadline from a rule, or displaying published statutory text is generally not UPL. Recommending which legal option a specific client should choose, drafting bespoke legal argument, or interpreting how law applies to a client's specific facts is — that is legal advice and must be gated behind attorney review.
- Engineering requirement: every AI/automation surface that touches client-specific facts must have an explicit attorney-review gate before output reaches a client. No autonomous "here's what you should do" language. Disclaimers alone do not cure UPL exposure — the gate must be structural, not cosmetic.
- Non-attorney staff (paralegals): may prepare documents and communicate under an attorney's supervision, but may not give legal advice, set fees independently, or represent a client. Any workflow that lets a paralegal-role user "finalize" client-facing legal conclusions without an attorney sign-off is a UPL gap.
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 30fa6ab01937
- 6d ago Changed 0839381b4c20
- 9d ago Changed · -102 tokens per session 6e8ed4b3e9d6
- 13d ago First seen · 237 lines · 154 tokens per session scan A f36ef3d13ebe
legal-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (93 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 3,278 once invoked, about $0.0003 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-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…