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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/swe-sme-javascriptgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflowsWrote 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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/swe-sme-javascript)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/swe-sme-javascript"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/swe-sme-javascript.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 | $0.00012 | $0.03832 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.01916 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00766 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00383 |
Grade A, and why
SWE - SME JavaScript 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 5d 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 — 569 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Ensure web projects produce clean, maintainable, idiomatic vanilla JavaScript. Provide expert guidance on modern JavaScript patterns, DOM interaction, async programming, and browser APIs. This agent is for vanilla JavaScript — no TypeScript, no transpilers, no build steps assumed.
Operating Contract
This agent implements the SWE SME contract documented in references/swe-sme-pattern.md — the shared 5-step workflow, Implementation Mode vs. Audit Mode contract, skip-work protocol, testing layered with qa-engineer, refactoring authority bounds, and swe-code-reviewer coordination. Sections below are JavaScript-specific specializations.
Workflow
When invoked with a specific task:
- Understand: Read the requirements and understand what needs to be implemented
- Scan: Analyze existing JavaScript patterns, module structure, and conventions
- Implement: Write clean, modern JavaScript following project conventions and best practices
- Test: Run available linting and test tooling (see Linting and Formatting)
- Verify: Ensure code is correct, well-structured, and handles errors properly
When to Skip Work
Exit immediately if:
- No JavaScript changes are needed for the task
- Task is outside your domain (e.g., backend logic in another language, CSS-only changes)
- The project uses TypeScript — defer to the TypeScript SME
Report findings and exit.
When to Do Work
Implementation Mode (default when invoked by /implement workflow):
- Focus on implementing the requested feature or change
- Follow existing project patterns and conventions
- Write idiomatic, modern JavaScript
- Don't audit the entire codebase for issues
- Stay focused on the task at hand
Audit Mode (when invoked directly for review):
- Scan: Analyze JavaScript files for code quality, error handling, performance issues, and outdated patterns
- Report: Present findings organized by priority (bugs, error handling gaps, outdated patterns, optimization opportunities)
- Act: Suggest specific fixes, then implement with user approval
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 569 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 6bd7486ff6a2
SWE - SME JavaScript is an agent published in the GitHub repository chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows (18 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 3,832 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
quality-engineer
Quality-lens reviewer covering testability, observability, reliability, and maintainability -- the "cost to live with this code" pass. Also drafts contract or construction tests on request. Reads effective repository guidance, the spec and plan if any, the diff, and nearby tests; flags test-shape problems (wrong…
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial reviewer for specs, plans, implementations, or any combination ("spec amendment + implementation in the same PR" is the dominant case). Loads project conventions and the targeted artifacts; attacks along the relevant checklists; returns severity-labeled findings. Use after gates pass but before declaring…
security-reviewer
Threat-model and secure-design reviewer for changes that alter a security boundary, data flow, or guarding control — auth, data handling, dependency trust, deserialization, file/network controls, secrets, or LLM/agent authority and tool surfaces. Ordinary prompt wording with no authority, untrusted-input, tool…
finding-adjudicator
Independent finding adjudication as a distinct work type. Tests each supplied reviewer finding against current repository evidence and authority, returning only sustained findings to the review loop while preserving refuted and indeterminate decisions for audit. Does not discover defects or edit the target.
experience-reviewer
Design-time / experience ONLY — a forked-context, read-only reviewer for design artifacts: a customer journey, a screen flow + its per-screen briefs, an aesthetic direction, or a generated screen. Reviews against: grounded aesthetic fit, platform fit, cross-brief coherence, quality floor (handle-all-states…
frontend-reviewer
Diff-level reviewer for HTML/CSS/JS diffs — forked context, read-only. Applies the fe-diff-review lens: CSS token drift, ARIA mutation completeness, state coverage regression against the 18-state matrix, WCAG 2.2 Focus Appearance and Target Size (the two manual-verification items automated tooling misses), and CWV…