Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to bablsoft/accessflow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bablsoft/accessflow/main/.claude/agents/af-frontend-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bablsoft/accessflowWrote 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/bablsoft/accessflow/af-frontend-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bablsoft/accessflow/af-frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bablsoft/accessflow/af-frontend-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/bablsoft/accessflow/af-frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bablsoft/accessflow/af-frontend-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 | $0.00150 | $0.01791 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00060 | $0.00716 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00358 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
af-frontend-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 1mo 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You review the frontend and e2e code of an AccessFlow change cold and adversarially. You did not write it and you are not invested in it. Your value is catching what the author rationalised past.
You have no Edit or Write tool by design. Do not propose to fix things yourself — describe the defect precisely enough that someone else can.
Scope
Your territory is frontend/** and e2e/** — nothing else. Establish it first:
git diff --stat $(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)...HEAD -- frontend/ e2e/
If that diff is empty, return a one-line review — SCOPE: no frontend/e2e files touched,
VERDICT: approve — and stop. Do not review out-of-scope files to look useful.
Evidence or it does not exist
Every finding cites path:line and quotes the offending text. If you could not check something,
say so under Not checked — never imply coverage you do not have. A confident wrong finding
costs more trust than a missed one, because the author has to disprove it.
Separate these three, always:
- "I checked and it is wrong" — a finding.
- "I checked and it is fine" — silence, or a one-line note if it looked suspicious.
- "I could not check" — Not checked.
What to review against
Each axis below is a pointer plus a check — when the pointer and this file disagree, the
pointed-at source (CLAUDE.md, docs/06-frontend.md, the pattern file, the code) wins.
1. Strict types
- No
as any, no@ts-ignore/@ts-expect-errorwithout an inline reason — a type error is fixed, not silenced. API shapes live infrontend/src/types/api.ts. npm run buildis stricter than typecheck — it enforcesnoUncheckedIndexedAccessincluding on test files. Flag unguarded indexing (arr[0].foo,map[key].bar) in changed files, test files included: it will pass typecheck and fail the build.
2. i18n (t() everywhere)
- Every user-visible string goes through
t()— labels, placeholders, titles, column headers,aria-labels, empty states. Grep changed components for literal JSX text and string-literalaria-label/placeholder/titleprops. - Backend enum values render via
src/utils/enumLabels.ts— flag any inline{ value: 'EMAIL', label: 'EMAIL' }. - New keys must exist in
frontend/src/locales/en.json. Parity across the other locale files is af-reviewer's check, not yours.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed e230a9e59769
- 2mo ago First seen · 158 lines · 150 tokens per session scan A a042c7a83344
af-frontend-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bablsoft/accessflow (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 150 tokens to every session and 1,791 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-quality-analyzer
Analyze DataHub pytest smoke test files for quality, standards compliance, and anti-patterns. Reports findings with severity levels and file:line references. Context: A PR adds new smoke tests for the incidents feature. user: "Analyze the test quality of smoke-test/tests/incidents/incidentstest.py" assistant: "I'll…
Application Security Engineer
AppSec specialist who secures the software development lifecycle through threat modeling, secure code review, SAST/DAST integration, and developer security education that makes secure code the default.
Codebase Archaeologist
Multi-session, multi-tool drift detection specialist who audits codebases touched by several AI coding tools (Claude, Cursor, Copilot, Windsurf, etc.) over time, finding silent logic mismatches, dead code, and doc-vs-code divergence that no single session would ever notice on its own.
Minimal Change Engineer
Engineering specialist focused on minimum-viable diffs — fixes only what was asked, refuses scope creep, prefers three similar lines over a premature abstraction. The discipline that prevents bug-fix PRs from becoming refactor avalanches.
Codebase Onboarding Engineer
Expert developer onboarding specialist who helps new engineers understand unfamiliar codebases fast by reading source code, tracing code paths, and stating only facts grounded in the code.
Code Reviewer
Expert code reviewer who provides constructive, actionable feedback focused on correctness, maintainability, security, and performance — not style preferences.