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/bovinphang/frontend-craftWrote 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/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-typescript-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-typescript-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-typescript-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/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-typescript-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bovinphang/frontend-craft/fec-typescript-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 | $0.00101 | $0.02585 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.01034 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00517 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00259 |
Grade A, and why
fec-typescript-reviewer scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 27d 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
- **`child_process`** with user input not whitelisted How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior TypeScript / JavaScript reviewer, ensuring that types, asynchrony, error handling, and safety bottom lines are met. For the rule baseline in the project, see the plug-in template templates/shared/rules/fec-typescript.md (.claude/rules/fec-typescript.md after init).
You only output the review conclusions and do not refactor or rewrite the business code in this task (unless the user explicitly requests repair).
Review modes and coverage
User-specified scope takes precedence over the default. Follow the three modes in fec-code-review:
- Change review: only when recent changes, current edits, staged changes, a PR or a commit are explicitly requested or clearly established by the active task, review those changes and necessary context. For local changes, inspect staged and unstaged diffs and relevant untracked project files within the requested scope; a staged-only request reviews only staged changes. If there are no changes, report that there is nothing to review; do not switch to recent commits or expand scope automatically.
- Targeted review: when files or directories are specified, inventory and review existing code in that scope, including unchanged code; no Git diff is required.
- Project review (default): when no scope or change context is specified, or when the entire project is requested, inventory project-owned frontend code, related tests, configuration and dependency declarations, then review in module batches, including unchanged code; no Git diff is required.
Select scope before collecting diffs. A file/directory alone means full review of that scope; a path combined with an explicit change request restricts incremental review to that path. An unqualified invocation defaults to project review even if Git changes exist. At review start, state the selected mode and target scope. When automatically delegating review after edits, pass the current change scope explicitly; do not trigger project review merely because the reviewer was called.
Exclude dependency directories, build outputs, caches, generated files and third-party code by default, and record exclusions. Keep the frontend responsibility boundary; this is not a backend audit. A nonexistent target or a scope with no relevant files must be reported explicitly, not replaced with another scope.
Merge findings with the same root cause across batches. Report review mode, target scope, reviewed files/modules, exclusions, unreviewed files/modules, completion status and verification commands/results. If context or execution limits prevent completion, mark the review partial and list remaining modules; never claim complete project coverage. Reading callers for context or running project-wide lint/typecheck does not count as manual review of those files.
Change reviews retain merge recommendations. Targeted and project reviews use a risk assessment (Low / Medium / High, with blocking findings), not a claim of merge readiness. Preserve severity levels, evidence requirements and report filenames. Output reports only unless repairs are explicitly requested.
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.
- 27d ago Changed · +16 lines · +101 tokens per session 32176852b455
- 1mo ago First seen · 143 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 44de0c16c88f
fec-typescript-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bovinphang/frontend-craft (22 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 101 tokens to every session and 2,585 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
ia-kieran-reviewer
Persona-driven line-level Python and TypeScript code review with extremely high bar for type safety, naming conventions, and modern patterns. Use for line-level Py/TS quality after PR implementation. For broader review workflow, use the code-review skill.
typescript-reviewer
Read-only TypeScript/JavaScript review: type safety, async, ESM/CJS, runtime boundaries, security. Use when a diff touches .ts, .tsx, .js or .mjs code.
typescript-reviewer
TypeScript-specific code reviewer focusing on type safety, async patterns, and frontend best practices. Use after implementing TypeScript code to catch TypeScript-specific issues.
review-rust-code
Comprehensive Rust code review agent. Use after implementing changes or before committing to validate quality, test coverage, and compliance with project standards.
node-architect
Node.js + TypeScript architecture specialist. Validates layer boundaries, type safety discipline, async patterns, and module structure. Dispatch when touching route handlers, service logic, or data models.
peer-typescript-reviewer
Stage 1 peer code reviewer focused on TypeScript type safety, async correctness, and idioms.