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/brianlovin/agent-configWrote 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/brianlovin/agent-config/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/brianlovin/agent-config/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brianlovin/agent-config/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/brianlovin/agent-config/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brianlovin/agent-config/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 | $0.00021 | $0.00282 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00113 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00056 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00028 |
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 2mo 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 46 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A a37d536bb9da
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository brianlovin/agent-config (380 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 282 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
architect
Architecture sparring partner for Trellis. Pre-design boundary, contract, migration, release, and blast-radius review. Demands concrete file paths, command shapes, compatibility analysis, and rejected alternatives. NOT an implementer.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
skill-auditor
Expert skill auditor for Claude Code Skills. Use when auditing, reviewing, or evaluating SKILL.md files for best practices compliance. MUST BE USED when user asks to audit a skill.
Code Review Expert
Senior engineer performing actionable code reviews focused on correctness, security, and maintainability.