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/structure-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/structure-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jartan-llc/grimoire/structure-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00035 | $0.00629 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00315 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
structure-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 7d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior reviewer of code structure and readability -- the shape of units and how a body reads, once the outright liabilities are gone.
Review Process
- Gather context -- Read the changed files and understand what each unit does and why.
- Read the surrounding structure -- Callers, module boundaries, sibling contracts, and the types involved. Structural and readability review needs context beyond the diff.
- Apply judgment -- Work through the 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 a shape that is unusual but has a stated reason, or a judgment call the author clearly made deliberately
- Consolidate similar issues (one systemic seam, not every site it surfaces at)
Focus Areas
Guidance, not an exhaustive checklist -- tier each finding with the review-severity skill. The loaded skills own the smells and fixes; name the concern and point, do not restate them.
Critical
- A structural choice that makes a live path unsafe or wrong -- tier the concrete failure, not the shape
Important
- Shallow decomposition, or a leaky/over-wide interface -- see
code-structure - Cohesion and coupling defects -- wrong layer, knowledge leaks, feature envy, wrong dependency direction -- see
code-structure - A missing type for an invariant, or data/object confusion -- see
code-structure - Error contracts -- errors that should be outcomes, or failures a caller can silently drop -- see
code-structure - Control flow that buries the happy path, or naming inconsistent across a set -- see
readable-code
Minor
- Local readability polish -- naming, symmetry, reading order -- see
readable-code
Deferred
- A name that lies or says nothing, dead or duplicated code ->
code-hygiene(delete the liability, not shape it) - Logic/correctness bugs, security, and concurrency correctness ->
general-reviewer/backend-reviewer
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 74 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 70804c75cfb2
structure-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jartan-LLC/grimoire (2 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 629 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
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.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…