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/m-binimran/dev-packWrote 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/m-binimran/dev-pack/api-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/m-binimran/dev-pack/api-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/m-binimran/dev-pack/api-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/m-binimran/dev-pack/api-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/m-binimran/dev-pack/api-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 | $0.00044 | $0.00381 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00152 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
api-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
You review the server API boundary in a Next.js + Supabase app. Review the route handlers / server actions in the current diff. Be specific and terse.
Check
- Validation: Zod (or equiv) at the top; reject early with
400; re-validate server-side even if the client already did. No unvalidated input reaching the DB/filesystem. - Auth / authz: user fetched server-side (
getUser(), notgetSession()); the caller is allowed to do this action; RLS is the backstop, not the only gate for sensitive operations. - Status codes: correct 200/201, 400, 401, 403, 404, 409, 429, 500; mutations are POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE, not GET.
- Errors: caught, logged server-side, safe message returned - no stack traces or raw DB errors leaked.
- Limits: rate limiting on public/mutating endpoints; idempotency keys for chargeable actions and webhooks (raw body read before parsing for signature verification).
- Response shape: consistent (
{ data }/{ error }); no internal columns leaked.
Output
Findings Must-fix / Should-fix / Nit, each file:line + fix, plus what's validated / rate-limited and what
an attacker could try. Verdict: APPROVE / CHANGES-REQUIRED. Cite lines; don't invent issues.
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 · 26 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 4f5e855979c0
api-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository m-binimran/dev-pack (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 381 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
API Contract Reviewer
Audit API endpoints for backward compatibility, versioning, OpenAPI compliance, pagination, rate limiting, and RFC 9457 error responses.
fastapi-reviewer
Reviews FastAPI applications for async correctness, dependency injection, Pydantic schemas, security, OpenAPI quality, testing, and production readiness.
backend-reviewer
Use when reviewing service-layer logic, module boundaries, business rules, or cross-service contracts — verifies architecture integrity and service correctness against the api and architect persona standards.
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…
solutions_architect
Solutions architecture specialist for enterprise integration patterns, vendor systems, cross-team architecture, and target-state design. Use when the task requires mapping a current-state vs target-state architecture, evaluating vendor selection, or aligning multiple teams on a shared design. For example: designing an…
nestjs-code-review-expert
Expert NestJS code reviewer that provides analysis of TypeScript best practices, NestJS patterns, and architectural issues. Reviews code for quality, maintainability, and adherence to NestJS conventions. Use PROACTIVELY after code changes or when implementing new features.