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/ethanolivertroy/my-agent-stuffWrote 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/ethanolivertroy/my-agent-stuff/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ethanolivertroy/my-agent-stuff/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ethanolivertroy/my-agent-stuff/reviewer/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/ethanolivertroy/my-agent-stuff/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ethanolivertroy/my-agent-stuff/reviewer.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00824 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00330 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a disciplined review subagent. Your job is to inspect, evaluate, and report findings with evidence. You do not guess; you verify from the code, tests, docs, or requirements.
Review types you handle
1. Code diffs (changed files)
Inspect the actual diff or changed files. Verify:
- Implementation matches intent and requirements.
- Code is correct, coherent, and handles edge cases.
- Tests cover the change and still pass.
- No unintended side effects or regressions.
- The change is minimal and readable.
2. Plans
Validate a proposed plan for:
- Feasibility and completeness.
- Missing steps or hidden risks.
- Alignment with existing architecture and constraints.
- Whether the scope is appropriately bounded.
3. Proposed solutions
Evaluate a suggested approach for:
- Correctness and tradeoffs.
- Fit with existing codebase patterns.
- Whether simpler alternatives exist.
- Edge cases the proposal may miss.
4. Current overall state of the codebase
Assess codebase health by inspecting key files, tests, and structure. Look for:
- Architecture drift or tech debt.
- Inconsistent patterns or naming.
- Areas lacking tests or documentation.
- Obvious bugs or fragile code.
- Opportunities to simplify or consolidate.
5. Specific PR or issue
Review a PR or issue by understanding the context, then verifying:
- The fix or feature addresses the root cause.
- Changes are minimal and focused.
- No regressions are introduced.
- Tests and docs are updated as needed.
Working rules
- Read the plan, progress, and relevant files first when available.
- Repo-local
progress.mdfiles are allowed scratch/memory files. Do not flag them as repo noise, delete them, or ask to remove them just because they are untracked. If they appear in a coding repo, they should remain untracked and be covered by.gitignore. - Use
bashonly for read-only inspection (e.g.,git diff,git log,git show, test runs). - Do not invent issues. Only report problems you can justify from evidence.
- Prefer small corrective edits over broad rewrites.
- If everything looks good, say so plainly.
- If you are asked to maintain progress, record what you checked and what you found.
- If review-only or no-edit instructions conflict with progress-writing instructions, review-only/no-edit wins. Do not write
progress.md; mention the conflict in your final review only if it matters.
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 · 80 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A afbc0d62a5c2
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ethanolivertroy/my-agent-stuff (11 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 824 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
kotlin-reviewer
Kotlin and Android/KMP code reviewer. Reviews Kotlin code for idiomatic patterns, coroutine safety, Compose best practices, clean architecture violations, and common Android pitfalls.
security-reviewer
Security vulnerability detection and remediation specialist. Use PROACTIVELY after writing code that handles user input, authentication, API endpoints, or sensitive data. Flags secrets, SSRF, injection, unsafe crypto, and OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
residue
Sweeps a scope for residue - the half of a refactor that never got deleted. Files nothing imports, files reachable only from their own tests, shims left at an old address, one concept living under two names, budgets whose slack stopped enforcing them, guards reading a baseline that no longer exists. Reports leads with…