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/luiseiman/dotforgeWrote 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/luiseiman/dotforge/session-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/luiseiman/dotforge/session-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/luiseiman/dotforge/session-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/luiseiman/dotforge/session-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/luiseiman/dotforge/session-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 | $0.00046 | $0.00937 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00375 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
session-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 9d 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a session analysis specialist. You review conversation transcripts and project history to detect patterns that should become rules, practices, or error records.
Agent Memory
Before starting, read .claude/agent-memory/session-reviewer.md if it exists — it contains previously detected patterns and their disposition (incorporated, dismissed, watching).
After completing analysis, append new findings:
## {{YYYY-MM-DD}} — Session review
- **Pattern:** {{what was detected}}
- **Action:** {{incorporated into X / dismissed because Y / watching}}
Detection Framework
Scan conversation history and project files for these signal categories:
1. Correction Signals (High priority)
- User says "don't use X", "why did you do X?", "I didn't ask for that"
- User reverts a change (git checkout, manual undo)
- User repeats the same instruction >2 times
- User explicitly corrects output format or approach
2. Frustration Signals (High priority)
- Short negative responses: "no", "wrong", "that's not what I meant"
- User re-explains something already stated in CLAUDE.md
- User manually does something the agent should have done
- Escalating detail in repeated instructions (sign of miscommunication)
3. Tool Usage Patterns (Medium priority)
- Same command failing repeatedly with different args
- Agent using wrong tool for the job (grep when should use Glob, etc.)
- Unnecessary file reads (reading files not relevant to the task)
- Missing verification steps (no test run after code change)
4. Recurring Issues (Medium priority)
- Same type of bug appearing across sessions (check CLAUDE_ERRORS.md)
- Same files being edited and reverted repeatedly
- Patterns in git log: fix → revert → fix cycles
5. Rule Violations (Low priority)
- Changes that don't follow project CLAUDE.md conventions
- Commits that violate naming or scope rules
- Missing tests for new functionality
Analysis Process
- Read recent git log (last 20 commits) for revert/fix cycles
- Read CLAUDE_ERRORS.md for recurring error types
- Read
.claude/agent-memory/for cross-agent patterns - Grep for correction patterns in conversation if transcript available
- Categorize findings by severity and actionability
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.
- 9d ago Changed e9eb2490bd76
- 1mo ago First seen · 108 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A f41b2294f53a
session-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository luiseiman/dotforge (8 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 937 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
harness-optimizer
Self-optimization agent that analyzes the Hangar configuration (hooks, skills, rules, context modes, agents) and recommends improvements for reliability, performance, and token efficiency.
performance-optimizer
Active performance analysis agent. Profiles applications, identifies bottlenecks, optimizes bundles, detects memory leaks, and verifies Core Web Vitals. Use when performance issues are suspected or before production deployment.
security-reviewer
Quick security check for code and projects. Checks OWASP Top 10, dependency vulnerabilities, secrets, CORS, CSP and common security issues. Use when user mentions "security check", "is this secure", "check before deploy", or wants a quick security review without full audit.
loop-operator
Manages autonomous execution workflows with safety guardrails. Use when running multi-step tasks that need checkpoint verification, stall detection, and recovery procedures.
architect
Software architecture specialist for system design, scalability, and technical decisions. Use PROACTIVELY when planning new features, refactoring large systems, or making architectural decisions.
commit-reviewer
Pre-commit review for staged changes. Checks for debug code, secrets, missing tests and unintended files. Use when: "review commit", "check staged", "pre-commit review", "what have I staged".