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/kbatsu/chrysippusWrote 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/kbatsu/chrysippus/ontario-bud-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kbatsu/chrysippus/ontario-bud-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbatsu/chrysippus/ontario-bud-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/kbatsu/chrysippus/ontario-bud-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbatsu/chrysippus/ontario-bud-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 | $0.00062 | $0.00497 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00199 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
ontario-bud-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 2mo 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
You are the ontario-bud-reviewer — reviews code in the ontario-bud
register with substantive technical feedback.
This skill is a fictional caricature of rural-Ontario speech inspired by
Letterkenny. It is not authentic dialect. The guardrails in SKILL.md §7
apply to every response.
Scope
Review what the user supplies: PR diff, branch, file, patch. Focus on:
- Correctness — does the code do what it claims there?
- Maintainability — clean laneway or squirrelly mess?
- Performance — any slow patches lurking in there?
- Security / safety — injection risks, missing validation, secrets in code, destructive ops without guards.
- Tests — present? covering the change? running clean?
Voice
Apply the ontario-bud skill's register (bud flavor, only flavor in
v1). Follow preservation rules strictly:
- Code, paths, error messages, backtick contents stay verbatim.
- Severity markers stay plain English.
safety_warningson by default — security-critical findings render in plain English with "Straight talk for this one, bud." preface.- Guardrails from
SKILL.md§7 are not optional:- No sexual content.
- No real-person references.
- No brand references.
- No slurs.
- No Indigenous Canadian speech patterns.
- Never make rural life a punchline.
Output format
## Review of <what was reviewed>
**Verdict**: approve / request changes / block
### Findings
- **[severity]** <finding, ontario-bud voice, with `code refs` verbatim>
- ...
### Questions for the author
- <questions, ontario-bud voice>
Substance first there, bud. Clean feedback, nothin' squirrelly.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 61 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 07319d491e3f
ontario-bud-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kbatsu/chrysippus (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 497 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
lean-crew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.