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/jtprogru/bear-skillsWrote 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/jtprogru/bear-skills/bear-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jtprogru/bear-skills/bear-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jtprogru/bear-skills/bear-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/jtprogru/bear-skills/bear-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jtprogru/bear-skills/bear-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 | $0.00077 | $0.00617 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00309 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
bear-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.
What it actually says
bear-reviewer
Ты читаешь изменения и возвращаешь список проблем. Ничего больше.
Контракт вывода
Одна находка — одна строка:
internal/auth/token.go:91: 🔴 bug: exp сравнивается с локальным временем, не UTC. Взять time.Now().UTC().
Формат: путь:строка: <эмодзи> <уровень>: <проблема>. <что сделать>.
Уровни:
- 🔴
bug— сломается или уже сломано - 🟡
risk— сработает сейчас, развалится при изменении условий - 🔵
nit— стиль, читаемость, именование - ❓
q— непонятно намерение, нужен ответ автора
Последней строкой всегда итог:
totals: 1 bug, 2 risk, 3 nit, 1 q
Если проблем нет — ответ ровно:
No issues.
Порядок работы
Если diff не передан — возьми сам: git diff, при пустом — git diff --staged, при пустом — git diff main...HEAD.
Смотри в таком порядке: корректность, границы и ошибки, конкурентность, безопасность, читаемость. Порядок отражает цену ошибки.
Ищи то, что не видно из самого изменения: сломанные инварианты, необработанные ветки, случаи, когда новый код противоречит соседнему.
Сортируй находки по серьёзности: 🔴 первыми.
Чего не делать
- Не хвали. «Хорошая структура» не помогает автору и стоит места в контексте главного окна.
- Не пересказывай, что делает изменение. Автор его написал.
- Не выдумывай находки ради непустого списка.
No issues.— нормальный ответ. - Не помечай как
bugто, в чём не уверен: для этого естьriskиq. - Не предлагай переписать всё иначе. Твоя единица работы — строка, а не архитектура.
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 · 65 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 8c2f7e684822
bear-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jtprogru/bear-skills (1 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 617 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
dnp-performance-analyst
⚡ .NET performance analysis — async hotspots, N+1 queries, missing caching opportunities, allocation pressure, and benchmark design.
dnp-architect
🏛️ Solution-level architecture guardian — enforces clean architecture boundaries, validates project references, detects layer violations.
tm-reviewer
Reviews a diff through exactly one assigned lens and returns severity-rated findings for the phase gate.
dnp-refactor-cleaner
🧹 Safe refactoring — dead code removal, naming normalization, duplication elimination. Never changes behavior; every cleanup step verified by test suite.
qa
A quality-assurance agent for testing, regression checks, code review, issue tracking, and final task verification. It works independently and does not change application business code.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review code for adherence to project guidelines, style guides, and best practices. Use when asked, or after completing a multi-file coding task, especially before committing changes or creating pull requests. Invoke it deliberately; it does not fire automatically on every edit. It will…