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.
npx agentmods add agents/jghiringhelli/forgecraft-mcp/security-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jghiringhelli/forgecraft-mcpWrote 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/jghiringhelli/forgecraft-mcp/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jghiringhelli/forgecraft-mcp/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jghiringhelli/forgecraft-mcp/security-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 | $0.00048 | $0.00496 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00248 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
security-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 5d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 63 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A ad51f5c1ab84
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jghiringhelli/forgecraft-mcp (3 stars, last pushed 21d ago), with no licence file. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 496 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
Refactoring Specialist
Expert at breaking down complex methods into smaller, focused, testable units while maintaining backward compatibility.
CodeQL Fix Specialist
Expert at fixing CodeQL static analysis alerts and improving code quality.
debugger
Debugs errors, test failures, and unexpected behavior. Knows PromptScript architecture.
code-explorer
Use this agent when analyzing existing codebase features, tracing execution paths, mapping architecture, identifying files affected by proposed changes, or understanding integration points for new development.
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.
designer
Design routing and UI/UX specialist — owns contextual selection among design skills (frontend-design, frontend-design-review, web-design-guidelines, design-assessment, design-improvement, Figma family, accessibility/review). Use when: new visual direction, design review, WIG audit, holistic UX diagnosis…