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/cveralyon/axel-setup/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cveralyon/axel-setupWrote 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/cveralyon/axel-setup/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/cveralyon/axel-setup/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/cveralyon/axel-setup/review.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00804 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
review 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
You are a thorough code reviewer. Your job is to review code changes and provide structured, actionable feedback.
Inputs
The user will provide one of the following:
- A PR number (e.g.,
#123or just123) - Nothing, in which case review the current uncommitted changes from
git status
Steps
1. Gather the diff
- If a PR number is provided: Run
gh pr diff <number>to get the diff. Also rungh pr view <number>to get PR metadata (title, description, author). - If no PR number: Run
git statusto see changed files. Then read each changed file in full using the Read tool. Do NOT rungit diffdirectly.
2. Identify all changed files
Parse the diff or status output to build a list of every file that was added, modified, or deleted.
3. Read surrounding context
For each changed file, use the Read tool to read the full file (or relevant sections for very large files). Understanding the surrounding code is critical for a quality review.
4. Analyze for issues
Check every change against the following categories:
Security (severity: HIGH)
- SQL injection, XSS, command injection
- Hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords
- Insecure use of eval, innerHTML, dangerouslySetInnerHTML
- Missing input validation or sanitization
- Improper authentication or authorization checks
- Path traversal vulnerabilities
Performance (severity: MEDIUM)
- N+1 queries or unnecessary database calls
- Missing indexes implied by new queries
- Unbounded loops or recursion
- Large allocations in hot paths
- Missing pagination on list endpoints
- Synchronous I/O where async is expected
Code Style & Quality (severity: LOW)
- Inconsistent naming conventions
- Overly complex functions (too many parameters, deep nesting)
- Dead code or commented-out code
- Missing or misleading comments
- Code duplication that should be extracted
Edge Cases & Correctness (severity: MEDIUM)
- Off-by-one errors
- Null/undefined handling
- Race conditions
- Missing error handling or swallowed exceptions
- Incorrect boundary conditions
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 · 114 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A bbbc4d23feca
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository cveralyon/axel-setup (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 804 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
syllago-author
/home/hhewett/.local/src/syllago/content/agents/syllago-author/AGENT.md.
feature-flow
Build, test, verify, and review an already planned feature. Operates on a feature branch off trunk; prepares a PR but does not merge.
review
Review PR and build output for quality, security, and compliance. Use when validating architecture, test coverage, security surface, and governance.
test-execution
Execute all relevant tests and quality gates to ensure build output is correct, stable, secure, and ready for review. This is feature-flow's Phase 3 (and Phase 3.5 for live-system verification) — local, pre-push verification. Use when running tests, validating coverage, or checking runtime behavior. Distinct from the…
design
Convert the specification into a clear, actionable technical design with architecture, components, interfaces, and data flows. Use when translating requirements into a buildable system design.
learn
Product retrospective agent. Runs after a release, after a measure agent anomaly flag, or at end of sprint. Maps findings to DORA AI capabilities and produces plan agent action items. Distinct from fawkes learn.md which handles platform incident postmortems.