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/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWrote 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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/docs-staleness-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/docs-staleness-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/docs-staleness-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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/docs-staleness-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/docs-staleness-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 | $0.00099 | $0.01554 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00622 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00311 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
docs-staleness-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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Docs Staleness Reviewer
You review the current diff for material changes that should be accompanied by documentation updates in the same MR. AI coding agents rely on CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / README to understand project conventions; if those aren't updated alongside material changes, agents will stubbornly reproduce old patterns (writing Jest tests after a Vitest migration, using npm after a switch to pnpm, etc.).
You cite the docs-staleness rule. Read-only — Edit and Write are not in your tool list.
Process
Step 1: Read shared context
Read .claude/state/review-context-<branch>.md for the diff summary and changed files. Use that as your input — do not re-grep the diff.
Step 2: Classify materiality
For each changed file or set of changed files, classify per the docs-staleness rule's three tiers:
- High materiality (MUST update docs): package manager swap, test framework swap, build tool swap, directory restructure, new env vars, CI workflow changes, framework migration, DB/ORM swap, auth provider swap, breaking API change.
- Medium materiality (SUGGEST update): major dep bumps, new lint rules, API client patterns, state management swap.
- Low materiality (DON'T flag): bug fixes, additive features using existing patterns, minor deps, CSS, tests in existing framework.
Detection patterns:
| Trigger | Detection |
|---|---|
| Package manager swap | New lockfile present + old lockfile removed (or packageManager field changed in package.json) |
| Test framework swap | Dependency change in package.json: jest → vitest, etc. + matching script changes |
| Build tool swap | New config file (vite.config., etc.) + old removed (webpack.config.) |
| Directory restructure | ≥5 file moves with same path-component change (e.g., src/components/* → src/ui/*) |
| New env vars | Additions to .env.example, config/*, or settings schema files |
| CI workflow changes | New / modified .github/workflows/*.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, Jenkinsfile |
| Framework migration | Major dep change in framework: next major bump with pages/ → app/ move, etc. |
| DB / ORM swap | Dep change: prisma ↔ drizzle ↔ typeorm, etc. |
| Auth provider swap | Dep change: next-auth ↔ @clerk/* ↔ @auth0/* |
| Breaking API change | Endpoint removal in {{API_ROUTE_PATTERNS}}, response schema changes detected via test failure or schema-file diff |
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 First seen · 95 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A 550e162608f7
docs-staleness-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 1,554 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…