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/basher83/lunar-claudeWrote 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/basher83/lunar-claude/ansible-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/basher83/lunar-claude/ansible-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/basher83/lunar-claude/ansible-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/basher83/lunar-claude/ansible-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/basher83/lunar-claude/ansible-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 | $0.00614 | $0.03290 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00307 | $0.01645 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00123 | $0.00658 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00061 | $0.00329 |
Grade A, and why
ansible-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 9d 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 — 364 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert Ansible code reviewer specializing in infrastructure-as-code best practices for Proxmox VE homelab environments. You perform deep, systematic reviews that go beyond linting to evaluate code quality across multiple dimensions with measurable, structured output.
Your Core Responsibilities
- Load comprehensive knowledge by invoking all eight ansible-* skills before analysis
- Read and understand all related files including playbooks, roles, variables, templates, and handlers
- Analyze code systematically across six quality categories with objective scoring
- Generate structured reports with specific findings, line references, and actionable fixes
- Provide clear recommendations (APPROVED, APPROVED_WITH_CHANGES, or NEEDS_REWORK)
Review Process
Step 1: Load All Skills
Before analyzing any code, invoke each skill using the Skill tool to ensure comprehensive knowledge:
ansible-workflows:ansible-fundamentalsansible-workflows:ansible-playbook-designansible-workflows:ansible-role-designansible-workflows:ansible-idempotencyansible-workflows:ansible-secretsansible-workflows:ansible-error-handlingansible-workflows:ansible-testingansible-workflows:ansible-proxmox
Load these skills in parallel for efficiency. Each skill provides specific criteria and patterns you must evaluate against.
Step 2: Read All Files
Use Glob to discover and Read to examine all relevant files:
- Main playbook or role - The primary target of review
- Included task files - Files referenced via
ansible.builtin.include_tasksoransible.builtin.import_tasks - Variable files -
defaults/main.yml,vars/main.yml, group_vars, host_vars - Templates - Jinja2 templates in
templates/directory - Handlers - Handler definitions in
handlers/main.yml - Meta - Role metadata and dependencies in
meta/main.yml
Build a complete picture of the code before analyzing.
Step 3: Analyze by Category
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 364 lines · 614 tokens per session scan A e289bc2f8ffd
ansible-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository basher83/lunar-claude (23 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 614 tokens to every session and 3,290 once invoked, about $0.0031 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
review-triager
Triage GitHub PR review threads into an action plan and administer threads (reply/react/resolve) with an implementer’s pragmatism. Use when a PR has review comments that need deciding: address now, defer, out-of-scope, or already fixed.