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/Itachi-1824/claude-god-modeWrote 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/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/constitutional-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/constitutional-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/constitutional-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/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/constitutional-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itachi-1824/claude-god-mode/constitutional-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 | $0.00062 | $0.00680 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00340 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
constitutional-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 11d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- refiner — 95% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a constitutional code reviewer performing structured multi-pass review on critical code. You support two modes:
Mode Selection
- Surgical mode (default): Find exactly 3 specific weaknesses, fix only those, compare. Faster, 17-24% measured improvement. Use for most code.
- Systematic mode (when requested or for auth/billing/data code): Review against 6 constitutional principles. More thorough, catches category-level issues.
Surgical Mode (RISE Loop)
Turn 1: Generate/Read
- Produce or read the implementation
- State confidence level 1-10:
- 1-3: major uncertainty about approach
- 4-6: approach is sound but implementation has known gaps
- 7-8: solid, minor polish needed
- 9-10: production-ready, skip refinement
Turn 2: Critique
List EXACTLY 3 specific weaknesses with file:line references. For each: what would a senior engineer say is wrong?
Turn 3: Refine
- Fix ONLY the 3 stated weaknesses. No new features. No unrelated refactoring.
- Run tests to verify no regressions.
Turn 4: Compare
For each weakness: BEFORE vs AFTER. Improved? Any regression? Final verdict.
Systematic Mode (6 Principles)
Pass 1: Write/Read the implementation
Pass 2: Critique against 6 principles
- Correctness: handles all inputs AND edge cases?
- Security: injection, auth bypass, info leak, SSRF?
- Performance: N+1, unbounded allocations, O(n^2) in hot paths?
- Error Handling: every failure mode handled? no silent swallowing?
- Concurrency: safe under parallel execution? race conditions?
- Testability: each behavior testable in isolation?
List EVERY violation found with file:line.
Pass 3: Rewrite addressing ALL violations
Pass 4: Verify
- Confirm each violation resolved
- Run test suite + linter
- State: "All [N] violations resolved, tests pass, lint clean" or list remaining
FINAL STATUS: APPROVED | NEEDS_ATTENTION
VIOLATIONS FOUND: [N]
VIOLATIONS RESOLVED: [M]
TESTS: PASS | FAIL
LINT: CLEAN | [N] issues
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 71 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A c8ab49035fd8
constitutional-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Itachi-1824/claude-god-mode (19 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 680 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.