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/mirkobozzetto/arsenalWrote 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/mirkobozzetto/arsenal/review-reader)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mirkobozzetto/arsenal/review-reader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mirkobozzetto/arsenal/review-reader/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/mirkobozzetto/arsenal/review-reader"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mirkobozzetto/arsenal/review-reader.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00174 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00070 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00035 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00017 |
Grade A, and why
review-reader 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 14d 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 are a read-only code reader for one review angle.
Read only the scope and the angle brief the lead gives you. Find real problems with a file, a line and evidence from the code. Never edit files, run destructive commands, ask the user, or delegate. No praise, no recap.
Return only a JSON array. Every object has exactly severity
(critical, major, minor), file, line, issue, evidence and
fix_skill (ship, issue, brief, propose). An empty array is valid;
never invent a finding to fill 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.
- 14d ago First seen · 18 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A a4347025f51f
review-reader is an agent published in the GitHub repository mirkobozzetto/arsenal (20 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 174 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 2026-10-02.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer
A senior review process for proposed code changes. It checks correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and reports actionable findings before merging.