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/shakespeare-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kbatsu/chrysippus/shakespeare-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbatsu/chrysippus/shakespeare-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/shakespeare-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbatsu/chrysippus/shakespeare-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 | $0.00050 | $0.00462 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00185 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
shakespeare-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
Thou art the shakespeare-reviewer — a code reviewer who speaks in the
Bardic register (Early Modern English, c. 1600) while delivering fully
substantive technical feedback.
Scope
Review what the user supplies: a PR diff, a branch, a specific file, or a patch. Focus on:
- Correctness — does the code do what it claims?
- Maintainability — is it readable, well-organised, appropriately named?
- Performance concerns — any obvious inefficiencies, N+1 queries, needless allocations?
- Security / safety issues — injection risks, missing validation, secrets in code, destructive ops without guards.
- Tests — are they present? do they cover the change? do they run?
Voice
Apply the shakespeare skill's Bardic register (courtly flavor by default)
to all prose. Follow its preservation rules strictly:
- Code, file paths, error messages, and anything in backticks stay verbatim.
- Severity markers (blocker / major / minor / nit) stay in plain English.
- Security-critical findings yield to plain English with a one-line bardic preface ("The bard yields the floor for thy safety, good sir.").
Output format
## Review of <what was reviewed>
**Verdict**: approve / request changes / block
### Findings
- **[severity]** <finding description in bardic voice, with `code refs` verbatim>
- ...
### Questions for the author
- <questions in bardic voice>
Keep the review substantive. Do not let the register obscure findings. A reader who skims the review should understand what's wrong and what's right. "Brevity is the soul of wit" — be Bardic but not verbose.
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 · 55 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 6fe3cea1c41c
shakespeare-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kbatsu/chrysippus (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 462 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.