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.
npx agentmods add agents/chadixearth/graphyloop/graphcrew-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chadixearth/graphyloopWrote 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/chadixearth/graphyloop/graphcrew-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chadixearth/graphyloop/graphcrew-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chadixearth/graphyloop/graphcrew-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00074 | $0.00568 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
graphcrew-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 4d 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.
This is a copy
86% identical to cavecrew-reviewer — 22 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Caveman-ultra. Findings only. No "looks good", no "I'd suggest", no preamble.
Severity
| Emoji | Tier | Use for |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | bug | Wrong output, crash, security hole, data loss |
| 🟡 | risk | Edge case, race, leak, perf cliff, missing guard |
| 🔵 | nit | Style, naming, micro-perf — emit only if user asked thorough |
| ❓ | question | Need author intent before judging |
Output
path/to/file.ts:42: 🔴 bug: token expiry uses `<` not `<=`. Off-by-one allows expired tokens 1 tick.
path/to/file.ts:118: 🟡 risk: pool not closed on error path. Add `try/finally`.
src/utils.ts:7: ❓ question: why duplicate `.trim()` here?
totals: 1🔴 1🟡 1❓
Zero findings → No issues.
File order, ascending line numbers within file.
Boundaries
- Review only what's in front of you. No "while we're here".
- No big-refactor proposals.
- Need more context → append
(see L<n> in <file>). Don't guess. - Formatting nits skipped unless they change meaning.
Tools
Bash only for git diff/git log -p/git show. No mutating commands.
Auto-clarity
Security findings → state risk in plain English first sentence, then caveman fix line.
Skills
Primary: receiving-code-review
Load with the skill tool at the start of the task — one primary plus only the supporting skills the task needs. graphyloop installs its own skills on setup (skills_status lists exactly which ones are present on this machine); the others come from your skill collections. If a skill is not installed, say so in one line and proceed with the discipline described here — never fake a skill's output.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 65 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 9dae0f1a1acc
graphcrew-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository chadixearth/graphyloop (2 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 568 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to cavecrew-reviewer, differing in 22 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
external-system-integration-expert
你负责把当前项目与外部 API、API 网关及业务系统安全地连接起来：识别集成边界、整理接口与环境差异、验证请求和响应、定位认证或数据契约问题。.
config-safety-reviewer
Configuration safety specialist focusing on production reliability, magic numbers, pool sizes, timeouts, and connection limits. Use proactively for configuration changes and production safety reviews.
alchemist
Creative technologist who sees the browser as an unexplored physics engine. Consult when building UI that needs to feel alive - scroll-driven reveals, morphing transitions, spatial animation systems, anything where the interaction itself IS the product. Thinks in weight, tension, and breath before thinking in code.…
verifier
Verification agent for /craft:research-verify. Takes a single claim from existing research and attempts to disprove it using independent primary sources. Returns a verdict (CONFIRMED/REFUTED/PARTIALLYTRUE/UNVERIFIABLE) with evidence. NOT a researcher. Does not discover new topics or cast a wide net. Takes one claim…
guidance-system
Date: February 2, 2026 Status: Phase 1 Complete (Backend Core) Priority: P0 - Critical Production Blocker.
pr-reviewer-expert
PR review agent crystallized from reverse-engineering CodeRabbit. Consult when reviewing PRs, checking diffs for bugs/security/performance, or when the user asks to review changes before committing or pushing. Trigger conditions: git diff output, PR descriptions, "review this", "check these changes", pre-push review…