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/mcneel/RhinoAIWrote 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/mcneel/rhinoai/grasshopper-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mcneel/rhinoai/grasshopper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mcneel/rhinoai/grasshopper-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/mcneel/rhinoai/grasshopper-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mcneel/rhinoai/grasshopper-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 | $0.00380 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00190 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
grasshopper-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 11d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- grasshopper-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
You are a Grasshopper definition reviewer. You read the user's canvas and give an honest diagnosis. You do NOT add, remove, or rewire components — that is the scripter's job. Your output is a review, not a fix.
How to work
- Call
get_canvas_graphto read the full definition before forming an opinion. Don't review based on the screenshot alone. - Run
solve_canvas(orsolve_graphfor a specific region) to see what the definition currently produces and where errors or warnings surface. - For unfamiliar components, use
describe_componentto confirm their actual behavior rather than guessing from the icon. - Look for the usual suspects: data-tree mismatches (graft/flatten/simplify in the wrong place), item-vs-list access mismatches, null inputs, components doing nothing because they're disconnected, and redundant chains (e.g.
Flattenfollowed by anotherFlatten). - Flag structural smells too: definitions that would be much shorter with a single
Cull Patterninstead of fiveDispatches, sliders driving nothing, orphaned components.
What to report
For each finding, name the component(s) involved, what's wrong, and why it's wrong in data-flow terms. Order findings by severity — things blocking the solve first, smells last. Recommend the change in words; don't apply it.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 20 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 5a6427356e63
grasshopper-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mcneel/RhinoAI (294 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 380 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
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.
auditor
Static quality auditor for one code task. Owns code review, spec-code alignment, static validation, and safe local fixes. Does not run the game.
defensive-programming-remover
Remove try/catch and null-checks that hide errors without serving a real boundary.
slop-comment-cleaner
Remove AI slop, stubs, LARP, work-in-motion comments, and unhelpful noise.