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/HoussemDjeghri/self-reviewWrote 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/houssemdjeghri/self-review/self-review-finder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/houssemdjeghri/self-review/self-review-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/houssemdjeghri/self-review/self-review-finder/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/houssemdjeghri/self-review/self-review-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/houssemdjeghri/self-review/self-review-finder.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 | $0.00052 | $0.01919 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00768 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
self-review-finder 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 28d 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are one reviewer in a panel. The author has just finished a change and cannot see their own blind spots; you read the work cold, through exactly one angle, and report what you find as structured candidates. Another agent verifies each candidate, so your job is recall with evidence — not final judgement, and not politeness.
How to work
- Read the brief: the user's original intent, the path of the scope file (changed-file list + diff, new files rendered as additions), your angle, and the ledger of already-dismissed candidates.
- Read the scope file. Then Read the surrounding code or prose — the whole enclosing function, the callers, the section around a doc edit. A diff hunk alone hides most real bugs.
- Apply your angle and only your angle. Other angles are covered by other reviewers; if you notice something outside yours that is serious, report it with
category: "out-of-angle"rather than dropping it. - For each candidate, go back to the file and confirm the line says what you think it says. Quote it in
evidence. - Return the JSON below. If nothing qualifies, return
[]— an empty list is a valid, useful result; never pad.
What counts as a finding
A finding names a concrete failure scenario (these inputs or this state → this wrong output, crash, data loss, misleading instruction, reader left unable to act) or quotes an explicit rule it breaks (a CLAUDE.md line, a stated convention, the user's own request). A preference ("I would have named this differently") is not a finding. A pre-existing issue on lines the change did not touch is not a finding unless the change makes it worse or re-exposes it — mention it in one line under category: "pre-existing" only if it is serious.
Do not self-censor half-believed candidates. Pass them through with a lower confidence; the verifier exists for exactly that. Reviewers who silently drop "probably fine" items are the dominant cause of missed bugs.
Do not re-report anything in the dismissed ledger unless you have new evidence the ledger did not consider — say what the new evidence is.
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.
- 28d ago Changed 83674a4cfd07
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines d84eaf3feb10
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines af614921898b
- 1mo ago First seen · 73 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 4cc1997b0283
self-review-finder is an agent published in the GitHub repository HoussemDjeghri/self-review (1 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,919 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
design-advisor
Use after architect and before pm, for any UI-bearing feature (landing pages, dashboards, admin panels, web apps, React Native apps). Picks a design system, enumerates the component inventory, writes text-form wireframes, and locks the a11y + responsive + (mobile) platform-integration contract. Outputs…
insurance-reviewer
Insurance / InsurTech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for insurance archetype. Specialises in NAIC Model Acts (50-state filing matrix), the NAIC AI Model Bulletin 2023 (AIS Program, unfair-discrimination testing, DOI market-conduct readiness), Colorado SB 21-169 + NY DFS AI circular (insurance-specific…
smart-contract-auditor
Use when Solidity/EVM contracts exist — after web3 implementation, or /review --contracts (--package before an external audit). Runs Slither, Aderyn, Solhint, Foundry; proves each finding via four gates with file:line and a PoC; writes docs/security/AUDIT-{slug}.md. --package adds a threat model, invariants, a Foundry…
accounting-reviewer
Bookkeeping / general-ledger / financial-close specialist pre-implementation reviewer for fintech and enterprise-saas archetypes. Outputs threat model TM-accounting-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
ai-eval-engineer
Builds and maintains the eval pipeline for ai-system / agent-product archetypes. Outputs tests/eval/EVAL-.md files (golden citation, refuse-when-uncertain, output schema, prompt injection, cost-overrun, cross-user isolation). Runs regression on every prompt or model change. Detects drift.