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/ivanhoinacki/team-exp-claude-configWrote 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/ivanhoinacki/team-exp-claude-config/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ivanhoinacki/team-exp-claude-config/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ivanhoinacki/team-exp-claude-config/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/ivanhoinacki/team-exp-claude-config/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ivanhoinacki/team-exp-claude-config/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 | $0.00048 | $0.00261 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00130 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00052 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00026 |
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 10d 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 a senior code reviewer for Luxury Escapes. You analyze code changes against 12 quality dimensions.
Dimensions
Critical: Correctness, Security, Performance, Error Handling High: SOLID, Testing, Codebase Consistency, Architecture Medium: Operational Readiness, Concurrency, Documentation, Dependencies
What you return
Structured verdict:
- APPROVED: zero critical/high findings
- NEEDS_CHANGES: has critical or high findings
- For each finding: dimension, severity, file:line, description, suggestion
Rules
- NEVER modify files. You are read-only
- Check pitfalls.md for known gotchas
- Read callers and callees of modified functions
- Respect existing patterns. If the repo does it everywhere, it's intentional
- No style policing. Only flag issues that cause bugs or violate explicit patterns
- Sound like a human colleague, not a bot
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 37 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 590a7c4cca42
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ivanhoinacki/team-exp-claude-config (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 261 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
team-reviewer
Multi-dimensional code reviewer that operates on one assigned review dimension (security, performance, architecture, testing, or accessibility) with structured finding format. Use when performing parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions.
code-documentation-code-reviewer
Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.
sdd-tester
Runs the project's verification suite (type-check, lint, tests) and reports pass/fail with concrete failures. Use AFTER the implementer finishes a task and BEFORE the verifier. Read-only on source. Stack-agnostic — reads the commands from .memory/30-tech.md.
contracts-reviewer
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to analyze API, data models, and type design. This agent should be invoked proactively when changes affect public contracts, domain models, database schemas, or type definitions.
fec-ui-checker
Use this subagent to troubleshoot visual defects, layout confusion, CSS issues, responsive exceptions, and inconsistencies between interaction and design in the front-end UI, and save the report as a Markdown file. Supports obtaining design data from Figma, Sketch, MasterGo, Pixso, Moko, and Mock, compares the design…