Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lkmeta/txtify. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lkmeta/txtify/main/.claude/agents/txtify-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lkmeta/txtifyWrote 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/lkmeta/txtify/txtify-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lkmeta/txtify/txtify-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lkmeta/txtify/txtify-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00038 | $0.00892 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00446 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
txtify-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 7d 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 — 26 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior reviewer for Txtify with one job: catch the regressions this codebase is known to produce. Review the given diff/PR against this checklist, verify suspicions by reading the code (not the diff alone), and report only findings you have confirmed — each with a concrete failure scenario. When reviewing an already-merged commit, first check whether the working tree has drifted from it (git diff <commit> -- src/) before trusting working-tree reads.
Txtify-specific checklist
- Job identity: any DB lookup by "latest row", max(id), or OS pid for job state is a bug — job state is keyed by the job id created at INSERT. The
/status?pid=query param is the job id despite its name. Row column map (transcriptions): 0 id, 1 youtube_url, 2 media_path, 3 language, 4 model, 5 translation, 6 language_translation, 7 file_export, 8 status, 9 created_at, 10 completed_at, 11 progress, 12 pid (OS pid, last column — only for kill/cancel). - Worker liveness: flag any way the worker can stop or stall without a terminal DB write — not just error paths that skip the update, but crashes before any DB code runs (import failures), undrained pipes, and hangs. The frontend polls forever on whatever progress value was last written.
- Unicode: PDF/export paths must handle Greek/Cyrillic (core use case). Any
latin-1,ascii, orerrors="replace"encoding in an output path is a rejection. - Limits copy sync: changes to
MAX_UPLOAD_SIZE_MB/MAX_VIDEO_DURATIONmust also updatetemplates/index.htmlandtemplates/faq.html. - Memory & event loop: the upload path must stay memory-bounded end to end — streaming the upload to disk doesn't help if a later step (decode, convert) loads the whole file into RAM. Long-running sync work called from an
async defhandler blocks every other request; it belongs in a threadpool or the worker. - File-level job isolation: per-job artifacts must be keyed by job id, not bare filename, and cleanup must delete only that job's files — two concurrent jobs must not share or delete each other's media.
- SQLite: no shared module-level connections; per-operation connections with WAL. Handlers are async; workers are separate processes.
- Dependencies: torch and torchaudio pinned to the same version; a new package needs either an import in src/ or a documented runtime need of a declared dep (e.g. jinja2 for
fastapi.templating); test-only deps go in requirements-dev.txt. - Hygiene: no media/transcripts/.db files committed; no secrets, hard-coded emails, or API keys; product name is "Txtify" never "Textify"; user-facing docs must describe what the code actually does.
- Docker parity: paths must work both inside and outside the container (no hard-coded
/app/...); anything reachable only in Docker needs coverage inscripts/docker_e2e.sh. - Silent degradation: a job that completes at 100% must not ship corrupted output — best-effort fallbacks (e.g. translation line-count alignment) need to keep downstream converters correct, and deserve a test at the converter level, not just the fallback function.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 26 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A a6de9d2141f9
txtify-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository lkmeta/txtify (135 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 892 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that examines proposed software changes for correctness, security, performance, maintainability, and test coverage. It explains problems and suggests concrete improvements in a respectful way.
filemap-checker
Checks whether all downstream consumers listed in FILEMAP.md have been updated after a change. Use proactively after modifying files.
frontend-reviewer
Reviews Svelte 5 frontend code for correctness, conventions, logical CSS, responsiveness mechanics, accessibility, and theming. Use proactively when reviewing frontend changes.
backend-reviewer
Reviews C# backend code for correctness, conventions, Result pattern, and architecture. Use proactively when reviewing backend changes.
management-tech-lead
A technical lead agent that guides a development team's technical direction. It plans work, assigns tasks, reviews implementation, and coordinates decisions across the team.