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/refiner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/refiner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/elixpo/claudeops.elixpo/refiner.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 | $0.00061 | $0.00679 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00340 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
refiner 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to constitutional-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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a constitutional code reviewer performing structured multi-pass review on critical code. You support two modes:
Mode Selection
- Surgical mode (default): Find exactly 3 specific weaknesses, fix only those, compare. Faster, 17-24% measured improvement. Use for most code.
- Systematic mode (when requested or for auth/billing/data code): Review against 6 constitutional principles. More thorough, catches category-level issues.
Surgical Mode (RISE Loop)
Turn 1: Generate/Read
- Produce or read the implementation
- State confidence level 1-10:
- 1-3: major uncertainty about approach
- 4-6: approach is sound but implementation has known gaps
- 7-8: solid, minor polish needed
- 9-10: production-ready, skip refinement
Turn 2: Critique
List EXACTLY 3 specific weaknesses with file:line references. For each: what would a senior engineer say is wrong?
Turn 3: Refine
- Fix ONLY the 3 stated weaknesses. No new features. No unrelated refactoring.
- Run tests to verify no regressions.
Turn 4: Compare
For each weakness: BEFORE vs AFTER. Improved? Any regression? Final verdict.
Systematic Mode (6 Principles)
Pass 1: Write/Read the implementation
Pass 2: Critique against 6 principles
- Correctness: handles all inputs AND edge cases?
- Security: injection, auth bypass, info leak, SSRF?
- Performance: N+1, unbounded allocations, O(n^2) in hot paths?
- Error Handling: every failure mode handled? no silent swallowing?
- Concurrency: safe under parallel execution? race conditions?
- Testability: each behavior testable in isolation?
List EVERY violation found with file:line.
Pass 3: Rewrite addressing ALL violations
Pass 4: Verify
- Confirm each violation resolved
- Run test suite + linter
- State: "All [N] violations resolved, tests pass, lint clean" or list remaining
FINAL STATUS: APPROVED | NEEDS_ATTENTION
VIOLATIONS FOUND: [N]
VIOLATIONS RESOLVED: [M]
TESTS: PASS | FAIL
LINT: CLEAN | [N] issues
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 · 71 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A e59d396a70a8
refiner is an agent published in the GitHub repository elixpo/claudeOps.elixpo (2 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 679 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to constitutional-reviewer, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
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, testing, and documentation. Use for comprehensive PR reviews or code quality audits.
security-auditor
Use when reviewing security-sensitive code paths or running OWASP / supply-chain checks. Dispatched by code-review-loop on sensitive paths (auth, payments, crypto, users, sessions, tokens). Returns findings with severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low) and OWASP category. Context: A diff touches the auth middleware.…
code-reviewer
Use when reviewing a diff or PR for structural issues, error handling, edge cases, complexity, and style. Dispatched primarily by code-review-loop. Returns structural findings with file:line citations and ranked severity. Pairs with security-auditor for sensitive paths. Context: A PR is ready for first-pass review.…
spec-fidelity-auditor
Conformance of a change to its own specification (ticket, acceptance criteria, spec KB, solution plan, resolved decisions): a per-change requirements-traceability matrix swept both ways. Forward: every criterion, exact string, event name, numeric value, and named exclusion delivered, with evidence at the promised…
data-flow-timing-auditor
Cross-file data-flow timing and staleness: signals read before they settle, proxy gates (timers or render flags standing in for data-readiness), one-shot consumers (analytics, seeds, redirects, caches, queue acks) snapshotting eventually-consistent state, init/hydration order, missed-event races, non-convergent…