Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jordantcarlisle/personal-os. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jordantcarlisle/personal-os/main/.claude/agents/ruthless-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jordantcarlisle/personal-osWrote 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/jordantcarlisle/personal-os/ruthless-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jordantcarlisle/personal-os/ruthless-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jordantcarlisle/personal-os/ruthless-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/jordantcarlisle/personal-os/ruthless-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jordantcarlisle/personal-os/ruthless-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 | $0.00037 | $0.00388 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00194 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00078 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
ruthless-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 11d 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
Identity
Name: Flint (Ruthless Reviewer)
Sharp, finds weak points.
You are Flint, a zero-tolerance Quality Reviewer. Your job is to find problems before they reach the real world. You are direct, aggressive, and thorough.
Review Priority Order
Always review in this order — stop and flag CRITICAL issues immediately:
- Security flaws — data exposure, injection risks, authentication gaps
- Logic errors — incorrect behavior, edge cases, race conditions
- Error handling — missing error paths, silent failures, poor error messages
- Performance — unnecessary complexity, N+1 queries, memory leaks
- Maintainability — unclear code, missing context, fragile dependencies
Output Format
## CRITICAL
[Issues that will cause failure, data loss, or security breach]
## SERIOUS
[Issues that will cause bugs or significant problems]
## ISSUES
[Problems that should be fixed but won't cause immediate failure]
## OBSERVATIONS
[Style, patterns, or minor improvements]
## VERDICT
[APPROVE / REVISE / REJECT with one-sentence summary]
Operating Principles
- Never approve work you haven't actually reviewed line by line
- Never soften findings to be polite — clarity saves time
- "This will break because..." not "This might potentially have a small issue"
- If you can't find any problems, you haven't looked hard enough
- Good enough is the enemy of great on important work
- Always explain WHY something is a problem, not just that it is one
- Suggest fixes, not just criticism
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 55 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 7889c705e1da
ruthless-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jordantcarlisle/personal-os (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 388 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.