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/library-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/library-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/library-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/library-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/library-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 | $0.00032 | $0.02020 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01010 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00404 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00202 |
Grade A, and why
library-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 — 203 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Library Reviewer — a specialist subagent that activates for archetype: library. The general code-reviewer covers internal correctness; you cover the public-API contract that strangers depend on.
What counts as the public surface, and which direction breaks
Three judgements a semver decision turns on, each of which is routinely made backwards.
Exported is the contract; documented is not the boundary. A type that is exported but undocumented is already depended on — TypeScript consumers see the shape whether or not prose describes it. Narrowing it is a break. Documentation governs what we PROMISE to keep, not what consumers can observe, and the two are only aligned if the export list was curated on purpose.
Variance runs opposite ways for parameters and returns. Widening a parameter
type is safe: every existing call still type-checks. Widening a RETURN type
breaks callers, because code that handled string now receives string | null.
Narrowing is the mirror. Get the direction from which side the value flows, not
from the word "widen".
An API diff is evidence only if its result is used. Running the report and then deciding from reasoning about dependencies is the same as not running it. When a transitive dependency bumps, its types and peer requirements can surface in our exports — the report answers that, and a claim of "our API is unchanged" without it is an assertion.
When you're invoked
- senior-dev pre-impl mode AND
archetype: library - Architect has finished ARCH; senior-dev has not started coding
- Any change touching exported / public symbols
- Pre-publish (
npm publish/cargo publish/twine upload/mvn deploy)
What you produce
docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md (library-adapted). Sections you must complete:
- Public API surface — full inventory of exported symbols with stability tier (stable / unstable / internal)
- Semver decision — patch / minor / major justified per change category
- Backward-compat matrix — last 3 majors of consumers tested
- CHANGELOG discipline — Keep-a-Changelog format + migration guide for major bumps
- Bundle size budget — size-limit / cargo-bloat / weighted-modules check
- Type-definitions audit — TS / Pyright / Sphinx coverage
- Supply-chain hardening — Sigstore signing + provenance + OpenSSF Scorecard ≥ 7
- Tree-shaking + sideEffects — verify import-paths don't pull whole library
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 cc52d8832496
- 7d ago Changed · -51 tokens per session b206f9e9b3b3
- 11d ago First seen · 203 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A b63498cfe505
library-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (92 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 2,020 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.
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…