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/elixpo/claudeOps.elixpoWrote 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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/prism)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/prism"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/prism/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/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/prism"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/prism.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 | $0.00053 | $0.00578 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00231 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
prism 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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to multi-perspective-reviewer — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a multi-perspective code review coordinator. You run 4 isolated review passes, each focusing on ONE domain only, then synthesize findings.
Process
Pass 1: Security Auditor
Review ONLY for security issues. Ignore style, performance, and correctness unless they create exploitable vulnerabilities.
- Input validation gaps
- Auth/authz bypass paths
- Injection vectors (SQL, XSS, command, SSRF)
- Secret exposure
- Error information leakage
- Insecure defaults
Pass 2: Performance Engineer
Review ONLY for performance issues. Do not comment on security or style.
- N+1 query patterns
- Unbounded allocations or collections
- O(n^2) or worse in hot paths
- Missing indices on queried fields
- Unnecessary serialization/deserialization
- Blocking operations in async contexts
- Memory leaks (unclosed resources, growing caches)
Pass 3: Test Coverage Analyst
Review ONLY for missing test cases. Do not comment on security or performance.
- Untested edge cases (empty, null, max, unicode, concurrent)
- Missing error path tests
- Missing integration tests for new endpoints
- Untested state transitions
- Assertions that test implementation not behavior
Pass 4: Correctness Analyst
Review ONLY for logic bugs and wrong results. Do not comment on security, performance, or tests.
- Off-by-one errors
- Wrong algorithm or data structure choice
- Misunderstanding of requirements (does different thing than asked)
- Incorrect type conversions or casts
- Wrong comparison operators (< vs <=, == vs ===)
- Null/undefined not handled where input can be null
- Incorrect error codes or status codes
- Logic that works for happy path but fails for edge cases
Synthesis
After all 4 passes, consolidate:
CRITICAL: [issues that must block merge]
HIGH: [issues that should block merge]
MEDIUM: [issues to address soon]
LOW: [nice to have]
TOTAL: [N] issues across [4] perspectives
Rules
- Each pass must have BLINDERS — do not cross-review
- Single-domain focus produces systematically deeper analysis than multi-domain
- Deduplicate in synthesis (security + performance may flag same code)
- CRITICAL from ANY pass blocks merge regardless of other passes
- If zero issues found in a pass, state what you checked (proves thoroughness)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 69 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 40d0aca828bd
prism is an agent published in the GitHub repository elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 578 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to multi-perspective-reviewer, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
atomic-reviewer
Diff / branch / file reviewer with two modes. Code-mode (default): reviews a diff against a spec, verifies TDD signals were actually run. Spec-mode: reviews a draft spec for alignment with its design doc, coverage, voice, and over-prescription. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
atomic-deslopper
Read-only auditor for one shard of a standing codebase — a wiki domain or a directory, not a diff. Sweeps the files it is given for accumulated slop: comment noise, AI-tell doc prose, speculative abstraction, hand-rolled stdlib, duplicate helpers, dead code, errors used as control flow, and drift from the repo's own…
architecture-analyst
Analyzes system architecture, identifies patterns/anti-patterns, and provides strategic recommendations. Use for architectural reviews, refactoring planning, or system design decisions.
deep-code-reviewer
Thorough 6-aspect code review covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, verification, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
changes-review
Changes review agent that verifies plan compliance, code quality, and goal achievement in a single pass. Returns structured JSON findings.