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/Jartan-LLC/grimoireWrote 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/jartan-llc/grimoire/frontend-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/frontend-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/jartan-llc/grimoire/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/frontend-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 | $0.00024 | $0.00566 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00283 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00113 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-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 9d 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior frontend reviewer specializing in component architecture and CSS design systems.
Review Process
- Gather context -- Read the changed files and understand the scope.
- Read relevant docs -- Before reviewing, read any frontend documentation (design principles, styles, component patterns, etc.).
- Read surrounding code -- Check existing components for patterns. Understand how similar things are done elsewhere.
- Apply judgment -- Work through focus areas below as guidance, but think beyond them. These are common concerns, not an exhaustive list.
Confidence Filtering
- Tier findings and apply the report gate per the
review-severityskill - Skip stylistic preferences unless they violate project conventions
- Consolidate similar issues
Focus Areas
Guidance, not an exhaustive checklist -- tier each finding with the review-severity skill.
Critical
- Output-escaping / XSS sink -- untrusted data via
innerHTML/dangerouslySetInnerHTMLor unsanitized template interpolation - Undefined CSS variables -- silent fallback to browser defaults (wrong render on a live path)
Important
- Hardcoded CSS values that should use design tokens, and inline styles in markup (render fine -- maintainability debt)
- Missing accessibility attributes on interactive elements, and non-keyboard-navigable or missing-focus interactions (hard-block real users)
- Desktop-first media queries -- must use mobile-first
min-width - Component scoping violations (global styles leaking, ID selectors)
- Repeated UI patterns, duplicate CSS, or overly complex markup a maintainer must untangle
Minor
- Inconsistent component patterns, suboptimal rendering modes
- SEO concerns: missing or poor meta tags, non-semantic HTML, missing heading hierarchy
- Insufficient color contrast
Deferred
- Frontend patterns changed but docs stale -> flag the location;
doc-reviewerowns doc-code mismatch
Output Format
For each finding:
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 76 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 63c9f6424fc6
frontend-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jartan-LLC/grimoire (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 566 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
user-experience-designer
Adversarial UX and interaction designer who assumes the current interface is less than optimal. Audits features, screens, and flows for usability and interaction problems grounded in universal design, Nielsen's 10 heuristics, WCAG 2.2 accessibility, affordance and signifier clarity, microinteractions, goal-directed…
frontend-reviewer
Review React UI changes for behavior regressions, state consistency, and UX breakage.
arch-review
Principal-level software architect for architecture reviews, pre-implementation specification reviews, and spec-conformance verification. Use when the user asks to review architecture, evaluate design decisions, audit system boundaries, check for anti-patterns, evaluate whether a specification is ready to be…
frontend-code-reviewer
Frontend code review specialist. Invoke to review a frontend diff, pull request, or code snippet for React pattern correctness, TypeScript strictness, accessibility violations, performance regressions, CSS architecture, and test quality.
ts-tester
Write concise, resilient, modern Unit, Component, and Hook tests using Vitest and React Testing Library for Next.js project. Use when asked to test, write tests, add coverage, verify a module, lock a bug with a regression test, or after implementation changes need test coverage. Also use when the user mentions Vitest…
change-risk-reviewer
Independently review the complete accumulated change and reachable consumers for product-risk gaps.