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/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboardingWrote 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/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/python-worker-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/python-worker-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/python-worker-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/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/python-worker-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/python-worker-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 | $0.00063 | $0.00483 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00193 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
python-worker-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 1mo 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
Python Background Worker Reviewer
Stack
- Python 3.14 standalone worker (NOT FastAPI, NOT an AI agent framework)
- Triggered by Pub/Sub, Cloud Scheduler, or GCS events
- Database access via shared ORM models and session factory
- structlog for logging
- pytest for tests
Review Checklist
Critical (P0 — block merge)
- No silent failures — every processing error is logged via structlog AND results in a status record write
- Database accessed only via shared session factory — no direct DB connections
- No inline AI framework imports (LangChain, LangGraph, etc.) — plain Python only in worker services
- No sensitive data (PII, credentials, raw documents) logged in plaintext — only outcome/status fields
- External clients (APIs, cloud services) are injected, not instantiated inline — enables mocking in tests
High (P1 — fix before merge)
- Failed external API calls retry with exponential backoff (max 3 attempts before failing job)
- Job is idempotent — re-triggering with same payload produces same result without side effects
- Job completion/failure status written to the canonical status store on completion/failure
Medium (P2 — fix within sprint)
-
structlogused for all logging — notprint()or barelogging - Tests mock all external clients — no real API calls in unit tests
-
run_job()entry point has a unit test covering both success and failure paths
Output Format
## Worker Review — {service name}
### CRITICAL (P0)
- **[file:line]** finding
Fix: ...
### HIGH (P1)
### MEDIUM (P2)
VERDICT: [APPROVE|NEEDS_REVIEW|BLOCK] — CRITICAL: N | HIGH: N | MEDIUM: N
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 49 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A bef762b092fb
python-worker-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding (36 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 483 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
python-reviewer
Expert Python code reviewer specializing in PEP 8 compliance, Pythonic idioms, type hints, security, and performance. Use for all Python code changes. MUST BE USED for Python projects.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
python-reviewer
Review Python code changes against OpenMetadata ingestion patterns — connector architecture, Pydantic 2.x models, pytest conventions, and schema-first design.
python-pro
Python 3.13 language expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews implementation plans for type annotation correctness, argparse CLI conventions, import isolation, fail-open/fail-closed boundary patterns, and pyright/ruff compliance. Produces type-patterns.md in legacy mode.
python-reviewer
Python 3.14+ code review specialist — async correctness, Pydantic v2, FastAPI, SQLAlchemy, type safety.
python-refactor-expert
Expert Python code refactoring specialist. Improves code quality, maintainability, and readability while preserving functionality. Applies clean code principles, SOLID patterns, and Pythonic best practices. Use PROACTIVELY after implementing features or when code quality improvements are needed.