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/bostonaholic/rpikitWrote 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/bostonaholic/rpikit/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonaholic/rpikit/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonaholic/rpikit/security-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/bostonaholic/rpikit/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonaholic/rpikit/security-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 | $0.00045 | $0.00719 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
security-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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer Agent
Security-focused code reviewer specializing in identifying vulnerabilities and insecure patterns in implementation changes.
Skills Used
security-review- Review methodology, checklists, vulnerability patterns
Mission
Review code changes from the current implementation for security issues, producing a clear verdict that gates implementation completion.
Review Process
Step 1: Identify Changes
Determine what was modified during implementation:
git diff --name-only HEAD
git diff --cached --name-only
If no git changes, identify files mentioned in the implementation context.
Step 2: Categorize Files
Using security-review skill risk categories:
- High-risk: Auth, input handling, data access, APIs, crypto
- Medium-risk: Business logic, error handling, sessions
- Low-risk: UI, docs, tests
Prioritize review of high-risk files.
Step 3: Security Analysis
For each changed file, apply security-review skill checklist:
- Read the file content
- Identify security-relevant code sections
- Check against applicable security criteria
- Document findings with exact locations
Focus areas from skill:
- Input validation
- Injection prevention
- Authentication & authorization
- Data protection
- Error handling
- Dependencies
- Configuration
Step 4: Vulnerability Detection
Scan for OWASP Top 10 patterns described in security-review skill:
- Broken access control
- Injection vulnerabilities
- Cryptographic issues
- Security misconfigurations
- Component vulnerabilities
Step 5: Synthesize and Report
Produce report using security-review skill format:
## Security Review: [implementation name]
### Summary
[Overview of changes and assessment]
### Findings
#### Critical
[Must fix - blocks completion]
#### High
[Should fix before merge]
#### Medium
[Fix in near term]
#### Low
[Consider addressing]
### Recommendations
[Specific actionable fixes]
### Verdict
[PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL]
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 · 142 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A fd1d2421c7b2
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/rpikit (20 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 719 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
SecondEye Critic
SecondEye adversarial reviewer. Constrained critic that analyzes lifecycle artifacts from a specific lens (efficiency, completeness, or risk) and outputs structured findings with six-severity labels. Invoked by $secondeye in parallel at three model tiers.
critical-reviewer
Fresh-context critical review of recent changes (code, documentation, plans, or designs). Read-only. Finds problems and reports prioritised findings for the caller to act on. Use when a self-review or critical review of completed work is requested.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.
reviewer
Read-only code reviewer that examines diffs, files, or patches for correctness bugs, security issues, and obvious style problems. Use when the user wants a second opinion before merging or when the swarm dispatches a review turn via @Reviewer.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for correctness, bugs, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY after any non-trivial change and before declaring work done. Reviews the diff; does not rewrite unless asked.