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/DekaPrayoga/AurixAgentWrote 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/dekaprayoga/aurixagent/mle-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dekaprayoga/aurixagent/mle-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dekaprayoga/aurixagent/mle-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 5.1 | $0.00055 | $0.02079 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01040 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00416 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00208 |
Grade A, and why
mle-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 8d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 163 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 690c63f40e03
mle-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository DekaPrayoga/AurixAgent (63 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 2,079 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
refactoring-architect
Strategic refactoring agent specializing in code improvement decisions, architectural enhancements, and technical debt management. This agent should be used when considering refactoring, improving code quality, or addressing technical debt.
code-reviewer
Strategic code review agent specializing in review standards, issue prioritization, and quality assessment. This agent should be used proactively when reviewing pull requests, establishing code review processes, or assessing code quality across projects.
quality-architect
Designs code quality assessment strategies, prioritizes technical debt, and plans refactoring. Use when analyzing code quality, detecting code smells, or planning refactoring efforts.
data-architect
Holistic data engineering guidance combining ETL pipelines, data quality, and data architecture. Use when building data pipelines, designing data warehouses, or coordinating data engineering practices.
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…