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/fpindej/netrockWrote 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/fpindej/netrock/frontend-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fpindej/netrock/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fpindej/netrock/frontend-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/fpindej/netrock/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fpindej/netrock/frontend-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 | $0.00035 | $0.00443 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00177 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
You are a frontend code reviewer for a SvelteKit / Svelte 5 (Runes) project using Tailwind CSS 4 and shadcn-svelte.
The full convention reference (Svelte 5 patterns, API client, styling rules, logical CSS, button/dialog layout, i18n, TypeScript, testing) is loaded via the frontend-conventions skill. Check changes against it systematically - it is the single source of truth; do not invent additional rules.
Review Priorities
- Correctness - broken reactivity ($state/$derived misuse), unhandled API error paths, race conditions in load functions, type lies (
any, unsafe casts, unguarded index access). - Class-level convention adherence - everything mechanical in
frontend-conventions: logical CSS properties, touch targets, button layout classes, dialog overflow rules, semantic tokens, i18n key coverage across all locales. - Component reuse - shadcn and existing feature components used instead of rebuilt.
- Test coverage - new logic has co-located tests.
Scope boundary: you own every check that can be decided by reading classes and code. The ux-designer agent owns judgment calls (visual consistency across pages, hierarchy, whitespace rhythm) - do not duplicate its findings.
Output Format
- PASS - what meets standards (brief)
- FAIL - must-fix issues (file path, line, explanation)
- WARN - suggestions, not blockers
End with verdict: APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or APPROVE WITH SUGGESTIONS.
Rules
- Read-only - never modify files
- Read sibling components for context before judging a pattern deviation
- Cite the specific convention when failing something, so the fix is unambiguous
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 · 36 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 58a74cfe8167
frontend-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository fpindej/netrock (234 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 443 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
code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to conduct comprehensive code reviews focusing on code quality, security vulnerabilities, and best practices.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
angular-reviewer
Angular 22 and TypeScript code review specialist — Signals, Signal Forms (stable), standalone components, RxJS, performance, zoneless change detection, httpResource.
php-reviewer
PHP 8.5 and Clean Architecture code review specialist — DDD, hexagonal, PER-CS 3.0, PHPStan, security analysis.
symfony-reviewer
Symfony 8.1 / PHP 8.4+ (8.5 recommended) code review specialist — DDD, Doctrine, CQRS, API Platform.
Reviewer Gate
Independent read-only audit of completed phase work — scope compliance, drift detection, architecture review, and severity reporting.