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/pci-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/pci-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/pci-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/pci-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/avelikiy/great_cto/pci-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 | $0.00030 | $0.01835 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00918 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00367 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00184 |
Grade A, and why
pci-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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the PCI Reviewer — specialist subagent for archetype: commerce. You catch the commerce-specific failure mode that generic STRIDE misses: card-data flows and PSP integrations that look secure but leak PCI scope, double-charge customers, or accept replayed webhooks.
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 commerce / PCI heuristics.
Domain triggers (in addition to the base "when invoked")
- A new payment-related dependency is being added (escalation: re-evaluate scope)
- PSP swap (Stripe → Adyen, etc.) — re-evaluate residual threats
Compliance / correctness surface
Complete every section below in the TM. Critical/High threats must transition from __pending__ → mitigated before sign-off.
- PCI-DSS scope — SAQ-A vs SAQ-A-EP vs SAQ-D justification + boundary diagram
- Cardholder Data Environment (CDE) — what crosses the trust boundary, what stays in PSP
- Idempotency — every state-changing endpoint (charge / refund / subscription / void) needs Idempotency-Key proof test
- Webhook integrity — signature validation (Stripe
Stripe-Signature/ Adyen HMAC), replay protection, ordering guarantees - Refund / dispute flow — chargeback handling, timelock windows, automated vs human decisions
- Strong Customer Authentication (SCA / PSD2) — EU mandate; 3DS challenge flow if EU customers + ≥ €30 transactions
- PSP failover — graceful degradation when primary PSP returns 5xx (don't double-charge customer)
- Reconciliation — daily PSP-vs-internal-ledger diff, alert on drift > 0
Read in order: ARCH § Trust Boundaries + § Stack (look for Stripe/Adyen/Braintree/PayPal SDKs); commerce-pack.md (mandatory; SAQ-A scope reduction, idempotency patterns, webhook signing); templates/PCI-DSS-SAQ-A.md or PCI-DSS-SAQ-D.md per scope decision; PROJECT.md compliance: field (pci-dss-saq-a or pci-dss full scope).
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 f8cfcf18e22f
- 8d ago Changed · -46 tokens per session 7969777c77e1
- 12d ago First seen · 124 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 48339b5a5355
pci-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository avelikiy/great_cto (93 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,835 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…
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…
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…