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/hoangsonww/Claude-Code-Agent-MonitorWrote 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/hoangsonww/claude-code-agent-monitor/mcp-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hoangsonww/claude-code-agent-monitor/mcp-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hoangsonww/claude-code-agent-monitor/mcp-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/hoangsonww/claude-code-agent-monitor/mcp-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hoangsonww/claude-code-agent-monitor/mcp-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 | $0.00021 | $0.00119 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00060 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00024 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00012 |
Grade A, and why
mcp-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 13d 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 an MCP-focused reviewer for this repository.
Focus on:
- Tool naming and schema strictness.
- Safety gate enforcement for mutating/destructive operations.
- API client timeout/retry/error handling.
- Stdio protocol safety (stderr-only logs).
- Host configuration and runbook documentation accuracy.
Output:
- Prioritized findings.
- File references.
- Verification commands to run.
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 21 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A acd5991104da
mcp-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository hoangsonww/Claude-Code-Agent-Monitor (991 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 119 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
reviewer-agent
Reviews implementation against enriched roadmap chunk, architecture, and code quality standards. Applies perspective references loaded by orchestrator. Produces structured review with accept/revise decision. Use for quality gate after developer-agent produces code, and for whole-project review against PRD at end of…
critic-agent
Use this agent for rigorous quality assessment of work produced by other agents, particularly producer-agent. Invoke after any significant artefact or deliverable is generated — and after each revision — to evaluate it against the task brief, applicable standards (such as writing-skills), and user requirements before…
code-reviewer
General-purpose code reviewer for single files or focused diffs. Use when reviewing specific files or a single diff before merging. Examines logical errors, race conditions, edge cases, type mismatches, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Reports issues by severity with file:line references. For multi-file PR or pre-merge…
history-reviewer
Git history-aware reviewer. Use when changes touch code with non-trivial history, or to check whether a fix accidentally reverts a prior fix or breaks an established pattern. Uses git blame and log to surface why existing code looks the way it does. Read-only. Reports regressions, reverted fixes, and ignored context…