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/dannysmith/tauri-template/userguide-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dannysmith/tauri-templateWrote 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/dannysmith/tauri-template/userguide-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dannysmith/tauri-template/userguide-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dannysmith/tauri-template/userguide-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 | $0.00031 | $0.00790 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00395 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
userguide-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Review user guide documentation against actual system features. Identify gaps, outdated content, and areas needing improvement. Return specific recommendations for updates.
When to Use
- After implementing user-facing features (to ensure they're documented)
- Periodically to check user guide completeness
- When user feedback indicates documentation gaps
- When explicitly asked to review the user guide
Input
Either:
- A task document (to identify what user-facing changes need documenting)
- No input (general review of user guide against codebase)
Process
1. Read Current User Guide
Read all content in docs/userguide/ to understand what's currently documented.
2. Explore UI Codebase
Investigate actual features by examining:
src/components/- UI components and their capabilitiessrc/stores/- Available state and featuressrc/lib/commands/- Command palette actionssrc/lib/shortcuts.ts- Keyboard shortcutssrc/i18n/locales/- Feature strings that indicate functionality- Menu definitions - Available menu actions
- Settings/preferences - Configurable options
3. Cross-Reference
Compare documented features against actual implementation:
- What features exist but aren't documented?
- What documented features have changed?
- What documented features no longer exist?
4. Check Content Quality
Review for:
- Accuracy - Does documentation match actual behavior?
- Completeness - Are all user-facing features covered?
- Clarity - Is content easy for users to understand?
- Tone - Is it engaging, user-centric, and helpful?
Output Format
Return this structured report to the main agent:
## User Guide Review
### Features Not Documented
- **[Feature name]** - found in `[code location]`
- **User impact:** [why users need to know about this]
- **Suggested section:** [where to add in user guide]
- **Key points to cover:** [what to document]
### Outdated Content
- **[Section]** says "[X]" but actual behavior is "[Y]"
- **Location:** `[file:line or section]`
- **Fix:** [specific change needed]
### Accuracy Issues
- **[Issue description]**
- **Location:** [where in docs]
- **Fix:** [correction needed]
### Tone/Clarity Issues
- **[Section]** - [issue description]
- **Suggestion:** [how to improve]
### Recommended Updates (Priority Order)
1. **[Most important]** - [brief reason]
2. **[Next]** - [brief reason]
...
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 · 117 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 92fdf9d57198
userguide-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dannysmith/tauri-template (301 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 790 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.