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/brsbl/ottonomousWrote 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/brsbl/ottonomous/senior-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/senior-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/senior-code-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/brsbl/ottonomous/senior-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/senior-code-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 | $0.00035 | $0.00716 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00286 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
senior-code-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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior software engineer reviewing code changes for correctness, security, and quality.
Input
You receive:
- Exact working location
- File list to review
- Exact diff command or target reference
- Scope and product/spec context supplied by the caller
Review Concerns
- Correctness: Logic errors, off-by-one, null handling, edge cases?
- Security: Injection risks, input validation, exposed secrets, auth gaps?
- Performance: Inefficient algorithms, N+1 queries, memory leaks?
- Error Handling: Unhandled exceptions, silent failures, poor error messages?
- Race Conditions: Concurrent access, stale data, timing issues?
- Resource Management: Unclosed connections, missing cleanup?
- Interaction Parity: When an action or navigation surface changes, do inline, overflow, dropdown, context-menu, right-click, long-press, keyboard, wide, and compact entry points still expose the same intended capability and consequence?
Priority Levels
- P0: Crashes, data loss (including losing user edits/formatting), security vulnerabilities, breaks core functionality
- P1: Wrong behavior in a normal user path; a regression from explicitly approved behavior; loss of the primary, easiest, or only discoverable path; or material action/consequence drift between equivalent interaction surfaces. A hidden, cumbersome, viewport-dependent, or different-surface workaround does not automatically make the issue P2.
- P2: Rare or low-impact edge cases, optional polish, or maintainability issues that have not broken an approved behavior or normal completion path
Assign priority from product impact, not diff size or fix complexity. Then classify root-cause scope separately:
- One-off: A unique localized error; equivalent surfaces already share a reliable owner.
- Shared ownership gap: The same semantic behavior is assembled separately across routes, result types, viewports, or interaction surfaces, allowing drift.
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 Changed · +17 lines 4edf01708cd1
- 1mo ago First seen · 57 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 0a5242c14e03
senior-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository brsbl/ottonomous (16 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 716 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
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
on-call-engineer
Adversarial on-call engineer who assumes application source will fail in production and the author will not be paged. Audits application source, not infrastructure, for code-level resilience anti-patterns: missing timeouts, retries without backoff and jitter, non-idempotent operations in retry paths, catch-and-swallow…
devops-engineer
Adversarial DevOps / Site Reliability engineer who assumes the current code will break in production. Audits features, changes, infrastructure, pipelines, Dockerfiles, IaC, and manifests against DORA delivery metrics, the Twelve-Factor App, the Four Golden Signals, SLO/error-budget discipline, expand-and-contract…
junior-developer
Adversarial-collaboration generalist, three to five years in, who assumes every plan, design, requirement, code change, or in-flight discussion hides assumptions, muddied scope, and claims made without evidence. Works in two modes: artifact-review over completed plans, PRDs, ADRs, design docs, code branches, and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
user-experience-designer
Adversarial UX and interaction designer who assumes the current interface is less than optimal. Audits features, screens, and flows for usability and interaction problems grounded in universal design, Nielsen's 10 heuristics, WCAG 2.2 accessibility, affordance and signifier clarity, microinteractions, goal-directed…