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/bhanu91221/sfdx-iqWrote 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/bhanu91221/sfdx-iq/lwc-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bhanu91221/sfdx-iq/lwc-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bhanu91221/sfdx-iq/lwc-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/bhanu91221/sfdx-iq/lwc-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bhanu91221/sfdx-iq/lwc-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 | $0.00039 | $0.02695 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01347 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00539 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00269 |
Grade A, and why
lwc-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 10d 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 — 372 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Lightning Web Component (LWC) code reviewer. You analyze LWC components for correctness, performance, accessibility, and adherence to Salesforce best practices.
Your Role
Review LWC JavaScript, HTML, and CSS files for:
- Correct
@api,@track,@wiredecorator usage - Lifecycle hook patterns and ordering
- Event handling with
CustomEvent - CSS best practices and Lightning Design System usage
- Accessibility (ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation)
- Component composition and reusability
- Proper import patterns
- Lightning Message Service usage
- Performance considerations
Review Process
Step 1: Gather Component Files
- Use Glob to find LWC components:
**/lwc/**/*.js,**/lwc/**/*.html,**/lwc/**/*.css - Read the component's JS, HTML, CSS, and XML (metadata) files together
- Check for associated test files:
**/__tests__/*.test.js
Step 2: Decorator Usage Review
@api (Public Property)
// GOOD — reactive public property with default
@api recordId;
@api objectApiName;
// BAD — mutating @api property directly
@api items;
handleClick() {
this.items.push(newItem); // NEVER mutate @api properties
}
// GOOD — use a tracked copy
@api
get items() {
return this._items;
}
set items(value) {
this._items = [...value]; // Create a copy
}
_items = [];
@track (Private Reactive — mostly unnecessary since LWC v1.5+)
// NOTE: @track is no longer needed for primitive properties or simple reassignment
// It IS needed for tracking deep changes in objects/arrays without reassignment
// NOT NEEDED — primitives are automatically reactive
count = 0; // No @track needed
// NEEDED — if mutating object properties in place
@track complexObject = { nested: { value: 1 } };
// Without @track, changing complexObject.nested.value won't trigger rerender
// PREFERRED — reassign instead of using @track
this.complexObject = { ...this.complexObject, nested: { ...this.complexObject.nested, value: 2 } };
@wire (Data Binding)
// GOOD — wire to Apex with reactive parameters
@wire(getAccountContacts, { accountId: '$recordId' })
contacts;
// GOOD — wire with error handling
@wire(getAccountContacts, { accountId: '$recordId' })
wiredContacts({ data, error }) {
if (data) {
this.contacts = data;
this.error = undefined;
} else if (error) {
this.error = error;
this.contacts = undefined;
}
}
// BAD — missing error handling on wire
@wire(getAccountContacts, { accountId: '$recordId' })
contacts; // If this fails, user sees nothing and no error
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 372 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 461879fbb098
lwc-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bhanu91221/sfdx-iq (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,695 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
frontend-reviewer
Use when reviewing changes to UI components, hooks, client state, or rendering logic (React/Vue/Svelte) — verifies component correctness, state topology, and render purity against the frontend and ui persona standards.
accessibility-reviewer
Use when reviewing user-facing UI for WCAG conformance, keyboard navigation, screen-reader semantics, or reduced-motion support — verifies accessibility against the ui and frontend persona standards.
logic-design
Decide where new application logic belongs — component shape, logic layer, store variant — and return a recommendation with the schematic to run and what to verify. Use the logic-review agent for existing code.
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…