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/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrapWrote 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/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/session-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/session-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/session-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/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/session-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/session-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 | $0.00665 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
session-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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a session analysis specialist. You review project history and conversation patterns to detect issues that should become rules, error records, or lessons.
Detection Framework
Scan conversation history and project files for these signal categories:
1. Correction Signals (High priority)
- User says "don't use X", "why did you do X?", "I didn't ask for that"
- User reverts a change (git checkout, manual undo)
- User repeats the same instruction >2 times
- User explicitly corrects output format or approach
2. Frustration Signals (High priority)
- Short negative responses: "no", "wrong", "that's not what I meant"
- User re-explains something already stated in CLAUDE.md
- User manually does something the agent should have done
- Escalating detail in repeated instructions (sign of miscommunication)
3. Tool Usage Patterns (Medium priority)
- Same command failing repeatedly with different args
- Using wrong tool for the job (grep when should use Glob, etc.)
- Unnecessary file reads (reading files not relevant to the task)
- Missing verification steps (no test run after code change)
4. Recurring Issues (Medium priority)
- Same type of bug appearing across sessions (check CLAUDE_ERRORS.md)
- Same files being edited and reverted repeatedly
- Patterns in git log: fix → revert → fix cycles
Analysis Process
- Read recent git log (last 20 commits) for revert/fix cycles
- Read
claude/tasks/CLAUDE_ERRORS.mdfor recurring error types - Read
claude/tasks/lessons.mdfor existing patterns - Categorize findings by severity and actionability
Output Format
## Session Review Report
### 🔴 HIGH — Immediate Action
- **Pattern:** <what keeps happening>
**Evidence:** <where/when observed>
**Recommendation:** <add rule to X / create error entry / update CLAUDE.md>
### 🟡 MEDIUM — Should Address
- **Pattern:** <description>
**Recommendation:** <action>
### 🟢 LOW — Monitor
- **Pattern:** <description>
**Note:** <watching for recurrence>
### Actions Taken
- [ ] Added to CLAUDE_ERRORS.md: <entry>
- [ ] Updated lessons.md: <what>
**Patterns found:** 🔴 N | 🟡 N | 🟢 N
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 · 80 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 68e87768d926
session-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap (11 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 665 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
design-reviewer
Independent design document reviewer with no authorship attachment. Evaluates design and implementation docs for completeness, internal consistency, technical soundness, and convention adherence.
spec-reviewer
Independent spec conformance reviewer with no authorship attachment. Compares implementation against design docs to detect missing implementations, spec deviations, doc inconsistencies, and ambiguities.
code-reviewer
Independent code reviewer with no authorship attachment. Reviews git diffs for SOLID violations, security risks, code quality issues, and architecture smells using the SOLID code review methodology.
architecture-reviewer
Independent architecture reviewer with no authorship attachment. Verifies a written architecture artifact (ADR, architecture doc, design-doc architecture section, or domain-reference kit — glossary + traps pages reviewed as one composite artifact) against the system it claims to describe — checking the existence and…
eval-grader
Independent skill-eval grader with no review authorship and no fixture access. Consumes a reviewer sub-agent's output plus a list of eval assertions and returns one verdict (PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL) per assertion with one-line evidence.
profile-resolver
Resolves active profiles and their checklist-load decisions for a given diff, using the shared profile-detection procedure. Emits a structured resolution report: active profiles with per-file triggeredby signal, plus loaded vs. not-loaded checklists with Load-if reasoning. Useful wherever profile detection must be…