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/ItamarZand88/CLI-Anything-WEBWrote 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/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/harness-compliance-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/harness-compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/harness-compliance-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/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/harness-compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/harness-compliance-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 | $0.00080 | $0.01940 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00776 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00388 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00194 |
Grade B, and why
harness-compliance-reviewer scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 2mo 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.
Asks for rootmediumPrivilege escalation
A mod that escalates privileges can change anything on the machine, not only the project.
- Credentials stored with `chmod 600` How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
HARNESS Compliance Reviewer
You are reviewing a generated CLI to verify it follows all conventions
defined in skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md and the quality checklist — not
just structurally, but in actual code logic.
Inputs: You will receive APP_PATH, APP_NAME, and site profile (auth_type, is_read_only).
Site Profile Awareness
Before scoring, determine the site profile:
- No-auth sites: Skip all auth-related checks (auth.py, auth commands, cookie priority, auth retry). Do NOT report missing auth features as findings.
- Read-only sites: Skip write operation checks.
- No-RPC sites: Skip batchexecute/RPC-specific checks.
Mark skipped checks as N/A, not as findings.
Scope Boundary
You own: code quality and convention compliance ONLY — verified by READING source code, not by running the CLI.
JSON envelope division of labor (explicit):
- You own the envelope STRUCTURE check: the code defines the correct
{"success": true, "data": ...}/{"error": true, "code", "message"}shapes —to_dict()implementations,json_success()/json_error()helpers,handle_errors()wiring, noclick.ClickExceptionbypass. - output-ux-reviewer owns end-to-end output VALIDITY: it RUNS commands
and checks that actual
--jsonoutput parses, contains no protocol leaks (wrb.fr,af.httprm, empty[]), and that REPL UX works. Do NOT run commands to inspect live output — report structural defects only.
Do NOT report API coverage issues (that's traffic-fidelity-reviewer). Do NOT report UX/runtime-output issues (that's output-ux-reviewer).
Your Task
- Find and read the conventions spec by globbing for
**/cli-anything-web-plugin/skills/shared/CONVENTIONS.md— it is the single source of truth for every rule below (HARNESS.md only indexes it). - Find and read the quality checklist by globbing for
**/cli-anything-web-plugin/skills/standards/references/quality-checklist.md. - Read all source files in
{APP_PATH}/agent-harness/cli_web/{app}/. - Check each applicable convention against the actual implementation.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 147 lines · 80 tokens per session scan B 53f0dc6ab19a
harness-compliance-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ItamarZand88/CLI-Anything-WEB (239 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 1,940 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (asks for root). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
ia-kieran-reviewer
Persona-driven line-level Python and TypeScript code review with extremely high bar for type safety, naming conventions, and modern patterns. Use for line-level Py/TS quality after PR implementation. For broader review workflow, use the code-review skill.
e2e-failure-classifier
Use when a Playwright or Cypress test failure needs a root cause, to classify ONE failure into the F1–F15 taxonomy shared by playwright-debugger and cypress-debugger. Give it the failing test name and the report excerpt (error, stack, attempt info); it reads the spec and config, returns the F-code with confidence…
e2e-finding-verifier
Use after e2e-reviewer or the Node scanner reports findings, to adversarially verify ONE finding in its real code context before it is acted on. Give it the pattern ID, file:line, and the flagged snippet; it reads the surrounding spec, project config, and the pattern contract, tries to REFUTE the finding first, and…
skeptic
Adversarial verifier for one or more review findings, each judged on its own; or, in CHECK mode, a quick check you run and then verify. Given claimed issues plus the code, tries to refute each against reality to cut false positives. Use to verify findings before they are reported. Read-only. Also cross-checks a single…
docs
Documentation expert for API docs review, README assessment, inline documentation analysis, and changelog evaluation. Use when reviewing documentation quality, checking docs-code sync, or evaluating developer onboarding materials.
pragmatist
Pragmatic ROI analyst for overengineering detection, effort-vs-value assessment, scope creep identification, and "good enough" evaluation. Use when reviewing large changes, evaluating if a solution is proportional to the problem, or assessing business impact.