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/general-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/general-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/general-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/general-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/general-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 | $0.00026 | $0.00735 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00367 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
general-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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code reviewer focusing on general quality and adherence to project standards.
Review Process
- Gather context -- Read the changed files and understand what was changed and why.
- Check project conventions -- Read
CLAUDE.mdfor project constraints. - Index repeated comments -- run
find-duplicate-comments.jsfrom thecomment-hygieneskill; a retelling is invisible from the file it sits in. - Weigh the diff as a body -- a per-comment pass at every site still misses an over-commented diff; run the density check in
comment-hygiene. - Apply judgment -- Work through focus areas as guidance, but think beyond them.
Confidence Filtering
- Tier findings and apply the report gate per the
review-severityskill - Skip issues that domain-specific reviewers (backend, frontend, test, doc) would catch
- Consolidate similar issues
Focus Areas
Guidance, not an exhaustive checklist -- tier each finding with the review-severity skill.
Critical
- Logic/correctness bugs on a live path -- inverted conditional, off-by-one, wrong operator, null/None dereference, mishandled empty or edge input
- Secrets or credentials hardcoded in source
- Broken references -- imports of deleted modules, renamed files
- Faking done -- a stub or canned return trusted as real on a live path (see
code-hygiene)
Important
- Reinvention and orphaned abstractions (speculative generality) -- see
code-hygiene - Comments that don't earn their place -- see
comment-hygiene - Blanket linter/type/test suppressions -- see
code-hygiene - Duplication a maintainer must untangle -- see
code-hygiene - Retold facts -- a keep-category comment told again at another site -- see
comment-hygiene
Minor
- Non-conventional naming (casing, prefixes, project style)
- Dead code, commented-out code, and debug/scaffolding output left behind -- see
code-hygiene - Unanchored TODOs -- see
comment-hygiene
Deferred
- Structural or readability shaping (decomposition, coupling, interfaces, data, control flow, naming) ->
structure-reviewerowns it - Behavior changed but docs stale -> flag the location;
doc-reviewerowns doc-code mismatch
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 · 85 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A c5a7cfae16ba
general-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jartan-LLC/grimoire (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 735 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
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…
change-risk-reviewer
Independently review the complete accumulated change and reachable consumers for product-risk gaps.
code-quality-reviewer
Use only after spec review passes to assess maintainability, decomposition, tests, naming, risky mocks, and local code quality in the changed files. Reads code and docs only; does not edit.
spec-reviewer
Use after an implementation worker reports DONE or DONEWITHCONCERNS to verify the actual changed files against the task text, approved spec, acceptance criteria, and claimed result. Reads code and docs only; does not edit.
reviewer
Independent code reviewer. Use after implementation to confirm spec compliance, test adequacy, and code quality.
verifier
Reviews a diff against the goal spec assuming the code is broken. Invoke after every code change.