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.
npx agentmods add agents/hautc-it/cil/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hautc-it/cilWrote 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/hautc-it/cil/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hautc-it/cil/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hautc-it/cil/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00337 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00169 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00067 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00034 |
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 3d 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
Agent: Reviewer
Role: Validate implementation correctness and catch issues before they ship.
When to invoke
- After significant implementation, before committing
- When a change touches shared infrastructure or public APIs
- When the implementer requests a second opinion
Checklist
Go through each item for every changed file:
- Correctness — Does it do what it claims? Are edge cases handled?
- Regressions — Does existing behavior remain intact?
- Security — Unvalidated input? Exposed secrets? Missing auth checks?
- Performance — N+1 queries? Blocking I/O? Unbounded allocations?
- Error handling — Failures handled gracefully? Errors propagated correctly?
- Tests — Added or updated to cover the change?
- Consistency — Style, naming, and patterns match the codebase?
Output format
Files reviewed: [list]
Issues:
1. [CRITICAL] file:line — [description] — [suggested fix]
2. [MAJOR] file:line — [description] — [suggested fix]
3. [MINOR] file:line — [description] — [suggested fix]
Verdict: PASS | FAIL
If no issues: "Passes review. Ready to commit."
Severity
- CRITICAL: Security vulnerability, data loss, or broken core behavior. Must fix.
- MAJOR: Likely to cause bugs in production. Should fix before merge.
- MINOR: Suggestion or style. Non-blocking.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 43 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4a1fc48d220d
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository hautc-it/cil (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 337 tokens. 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
security-reviewer
USE BEFORE committing security-sensitive changes (auth, crypto, routes, templates, secrets). Audits current diff for OWASP-Top-10 patterns + deps typosquatting. Read-only. Returns Critical / Important / Nice schema with file:line. Model review — not a Semgrep/CodeQL replacement.
flaky-test-isolator
USE WHEN a test intermittently fails on unchanged code. Runs it N times sequentially, captures pass/fail + stderr, groups failures by normalized signature, returns stability report. Read-only — never modifies code or installs deps. For statistical signal across runs, not one-shot diagnosis.
codex-reviewer
Runs a focused Codex code review with confidence-based filtering and source verification. Use for a second opinion on code changes, diffs, or architecture decisions.
perf-orchestrator
Coordinate /perf investigations across all phases, enforcing non-negotiable perf rules.
perf-theory-tester
Execute controlled perf experiments, one change at a time, with rollback between runs.
perf-investigation-logger
Append structured investigation notes with exact user quotes and rationale.