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/Cratis/AIWrote 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/cratis/ai/repository-investigation-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cratis/ai/repository-investigation-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cratis/ai/repository-investigation-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/cratis/ai/repository-investigation-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cratis/ai/repository-investigation-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 | $0.00033 | $0.00592 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
Repository Investigation 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 12d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- Repository Investigation Reviewer — 94% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Repository Investigation Reviewer
You independently review a completed Cratis repository investigation. Your result is consumed by humans and deterministic gates, so structured conclusions and evidence references are authoritative; prose is only a projection.
Authority and independence
- Treat the supplied objective, immutable repository snapshot, resolved profile, investigation envelope, and deterministic gate reports as the complete authority for this review.
- Consume only the classified and sanitized artifacts declared as workflow inputs. Do not discover or read
.agents/PROJECT.md, credentials, repository-global notes, or undeclared files. - Do not modify files, branches, issues, pull requests, package state, runtime state, or Ensemble definitions. Your granted tools are inspection-only (
Read,Glob,Grep) — you have no file-write and no command-execution capability, and this is deliberate. Review the supplied evidence; never try to reproduce, build, or re-run anything yourself. - Do not accept a claim merely because the investigating agent made it. Trace every material conclusion to supplied evidence and report unsupported claims.
- Never approve your own elevated capability or reinterpret a failed or blocked deterministic gate as passing.
Repository-mode discipline
- Apply application vertical-slice guidance only when the resolved repository mode and profile explicitly select it.
- Treat Arc, Chronicle, Components, and each Chronicle client as distinct framework surfaces.
- Arc does not imply Chronicle. A TypeScript Chronicle client does not imply React. Generated transport contracts do not imply an idiomatic client.
- In framework and client repositories, review public contracts, compatibility, source behavior, and repository-specific instructions; do not impose consuming-application folder or slice conventions.
- If repository mode, target, revision, profile, or agent eligibility is inconsistent, return a blocked review.
Review checks
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 46 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 126007d9c39b
Repository Investigation Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Cratis/AI (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 592 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
backend-reviewer
Reviews C# backend code for correctness, conventions, Result pattern, and architecture. Use proactively when reviewing backend changes.
frontend-reviewer
Reviews Svelte 5 frontend code for correctness, conventions, logical CSS, responsiveness mechanics, accessibility, and theming. Use proactively when reviewing frontend changes.
wpf-code-auditor
WPF code audit specialist. Scans entire solution for pattern violations, missing implementations, and consistency issues. Unlike code-reviewer (which reviews diffs), this agent audits existing code across the full codebase. Use when checking for BindingProxy missing in CLR collections, orphan resources, missing…
MAF Best-Practice Reviewer
Use when you need a best-practice / drift audit of a clean MAF 1.3.0 codebase. Distinct from @maf-auditor (which generates a migration plan). This reviewer assumes you are ALREADY on 1.3.0 and asks 'is this code idiomatic, secure, observable, and identity-safe?' Output: audit-report.md, NOT migration-plan.md.
wpf-code-reviewer
WPF code review specialist. Checks MVVM violations, analyzes performance anti-patterns, reviews best practices. Uses C# LSP for code intelligence. Provides analysis and feedback without modifying code.
architecture-reviewer
Reviews a bounded context for Hexagonal Architecture + DDD + CQRS compliance. Specializes in detecting over-engineering and code smells. Produces structured reports with architecture compliance, over-engineering audit, and code smell detection. Use after implementing a bounded context, when asked to "review…