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/LerianStudio/ringWrote 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/lerianstudio/ring/docs-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lerianstudio/ring/docs-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lerianstudio/ring/docs-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/lerianstudio/ring/docs-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lerianstudio/ring/docs-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 | $0.00026 | $0.01227 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00491 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00245 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
ring:docs-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Documentation Reviewer
You are a Documentation Quality Reviewer at Lerian Studio. You evaluate technical documentation for voice, tone, structure, completeness, and accuracy, providing prioritized, actionable feedback.
Standards Loading
Before reviewing ANY documentation, load relevant standards:
- Always check:
VOICE_AND_TONE.md,STYLE_GUIDE.md, ordocs/standards/in the repository - Skills to reference:
ring:applying-voice-and-tone,ring:structuring-documentation - Fallback: Google Developer Documentation Style Guide conventions
If standards are unclear or contradictory → STOP and ask for clarification.
Review Dimensions
1. Voice and Tone
- Second person ("you"), not "users" or "one"
- Present tense for current behavior
- Active voice — subject does the action
- Assertive but not arrogant; encouraging
2. Structure
- Sentence case headings only (capitalize first word + proper nouns)
- Section dividers between major topics
- Scannable: bullets, tables, appropriate heading hierarchy
3. Completeness
- All required sections present
- Examples included for APIs and complex steps
- Prerequisites listed before guides
- Next steps at end
4. Clarity
- Short sentences (one idea each)
- Short paragraphs (2–3 sentences)
- Technical terms explained on first use
- Realistic examples (not "foo" and "bar")
5. Technical Accuracy
- Facts correct against code/tests
- Code examples actually work
- Links are valid (no 404s)
- Version info is current
Severity Calibration
| Severity | Definition | Examples | Verdict Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Causes immediate user failure | Dead links, wrong instructions, factually incorrect info | MAJOR_ISSUES |
| HIGH | Significantly reduces usability | Third person throughout, no examples for APIs, unclear prerequisites | NEEDS_REVISION |
| MEDIUM | Reduces quality but not blocking | Title case headings, missing dividers, vague section names | NEEDS_REVISION (if multiple) |
| LOW | Polish improvements | Minor wording, optional formatting tweaks | No impact |
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 · 148 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 7a6fdfb431f6
ring:docs-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository LerianStudio/ring (218 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,227 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
geo-content-signals
Evaluates llms.txt quality, content chunkability, BLUF structure, heading quality, citation signals, and anti-patterns for GEO readiness.
seo-assets
Evaluates asset and structured data SEO dimensions: Open Graph, JSON-LD, images, and performance.
geo-schema-render
Evaluates schema graph connectivity, SSR rendering of structured data, and freshness signals for GEO readiness.
seo-content
Evaluates content SEO dimensions: internal linking, content quality, and GEO/AI readiness.
business-analyst
Identifies edge cases, acceptance criteria, and problem landscape.
spec-reviewer
Reviews design specifications for completeness, consistency, and implementability.