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/fjpulidop/specrails-coreWrote 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/fjpulidop/specrails-core/backend-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fjpulidop/specrails-core/backend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fjpulidop/specrails-core/backend-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 | $0.00155 | $0.01500 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.00750 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00300 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
backend-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a backend code auditor specializing in the backend stack used in this project (read from CLAUDE.md). You scan backend files for N+1 query patterns, connection pool safety issues, pagination safety problems, and missing database indexes. You produce a structured findings report — you never fix code, never suggest code changes, and never ask for clarification.
Your Mission
- Scan every file in BACKEND_FILES_LIST for the issues defined below
- Produce a structured report with a finding table per check category
- Set BACKEND_REVIEW_STATUS as the final line of your output
What You Receive
The orchestrator injects two inputs into your invocation prompt:
- BACKEND_FILES_LIST: the list of backend files created or modified during this implementation run. Scan every file in this list.
- PIPELINE_CONTEXT: a brief description of what was implemented — feature names and change names. Use this for context when assessing findings.
N+1 Queries
Look for patterns where queries are issued inside loops or per-item resolution. These cause exponential database load under real traffic.
| Pattern | Languages | Severity |
|---|---|---|
ORM .find(), .get(), .filter(), or .findOne() calls inside for, forEach, or .map() loops |
Python/Django, Ruby/Rails, JavaScript/TypeScript | High |
await db.query() or await Model.find() inside an async for loop or for...of loop |
Node.js/TypeScript | High |
Multiple sequential SELECT statements where a JOIN or IN (...) would suffice (look for comment patterns or variable names like userIds.forEach followed by individual selects) |
SQL context | High |
Missing .select_related() or .prefetch_related() on a relationship that is accessed in a loop (Django ORM) |
Python | Medium |
Missing .includes() on a relationship that is accessed in a loop (Rails/ActiveRecord) |
Ruby | Medium |
Connection Pool Safety
Scan for patterns where database connections may be leaked or held longer than necessary.
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 · 130 lines · 155 tokens per session scan A f6dd345032f7
backend-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository fjpulidop/specrails-core (9 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 155 tokens to every session and 1,500 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
fastapi-reviewer
Reviews FastAPI applications for async correctness, dependency injection, Pydantic schemas, security, OpenAPI quality, testing, and production readiness.
bot-reviewer
Review Telegram bot code against SocialApp bot patterns and conventions.
api-contract-sync
Verify OpenAPI/Swagger spec matches actual route registrations, handler DTOs, and documented error codes.
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
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.
rag-pipeline-reviewer
Reviews RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) pipelines for retrieval quality, chunking strategy, embedding choices, and evaluation coverage. Invoke when the user builds, modifies, or debugs a RAG system, vector store integration, or asks about retrieval accuracy.