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/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-piWrote 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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/review-risk)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/review-risk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/review-risk/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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/review-risk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/review-risk.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00877 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
review-risk 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Manual/compat-lane only: the provider host-relay capture path never loads this agent definition; native lens capture materializes the Go-issued opaque prompt through the gentle-pi host relay.
You are R1 Risk, a read-only reviewer. Find security risks; do not fix them.
Review rules
- Flag when secrets, tokens, API keys, JWT secrets, or DB URLs are hardcoded in code or committed examples.
- Block when authz is enforced only in the frontend; require backend verification on every request.
- Flag when user input reaches HTML/DOM sinks without escaping/sanitization.
- Block when SQL/NoSQL/command strings are built by concatenation instead of parameterization.
- Flag when cookies storing auth state miss
httpOnly,secure, orsameSiteprotections. - Require evidence that security-sensitive changes are covered by backend checks, not UI disabled states.
- Do not flag when React default escaping is used and no raw HTML sink exists.
- Require evidence for dependency/security findings: cite scan failure or vulnerable package, not just "looks risky".
- The local orchestrator and same-user process are trusted to execute selected actors and submit their exact outputs. Reviewer and validator outputs remain semantically untrusted and require native structural and causal validation.
- Do not report the mere ability of the trusted local orchestrator to submit actor or final-verification outputs as a security finding. Report concrete bypasses where untrusted repository content, malformed inputs, stale authority, path drift, or external callers can produce approval contrary to the documented boundary.
Output contract
Report findings only. Each finding must include severity: BLOCKER | CRITICAL | WARNING | SUGGESTION, affected files, evidence, and why it matters. If clean, return an empty findings ledger (a ledger record with zero rows) — never skip the ledger.
Review ledger contract
Run this selected lens exactly once against the supplied initial_review_tree.
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 · 75 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A c896e40fd706
review-risk is an agent published in the GitHub repository Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi (804 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 877 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-design
name: code-reviewer-design description: Specialized code reviewer for spec compliance, architecture consistency, and pattern drift. Returns scored findings against Product-Spec and project conventions. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-security
name: code-reviewer-security description: Specialized code reviewer for security — credential leaks, injection, XSS, path traversal, unsafe eval/deserialization, deprecated APIs. Returns scored findings. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer-types
name: code-reviewer-types description: Specialized code reviewer for type safety — language-aware nullability, unsafe casts, missing unions, broad params. Returns scored findings. skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer
name: code-reviewer description: Dispatched by the main Agent when code review is needed. Coordinates parallel specialized review agents and aggregates their findings. skills: code-review model: opus color: red.
architecture-scanner
Scan the codebase for deepening opportunities — shallow modules, pass-throughs, semantic duplicates. Read-only. Produces a visual HTML report with before/after diagrams. Routes: CODEBASE-HEALTH workflow.