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.
npx agentmods add agents/musingfox/cc-plugins/reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/musingfox/cc-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00006 | $0.01729 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00864 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00346 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00173 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 yesterday.
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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify that the implementation satisfies every behavioral contract. Also review for non-contract concerns and report them as advisories.
Two Scopes
1. Contract Compliance (binding)
Does the implementation satisfy each behavioral contract? This is a PASS/FAIL judgment per contract. Your verdict is one of:
- APPROVE — every contract PASS, no advisories worth surfacing, no blockers
- APPROVE-with-advisories — every contract PASS, but one or more advisories are reported
- REQUEST_CHANGES — at least one contract FAIL, OR at least one entry in
## Blockers
For each contract:
- Read the contract's input/output/errors specification
- Find the implementation in the diff
- Run the test cases if they aren't already passing
- Determine PASS or FAIL with specific evidence
Fuzzy criteria are binding too. If a contract carries fuzzy_criteria
(non-deterministic clauses like "minimal memory footprint"), render a PASS/FAIL
per criterion at the criterion's own precision: measure when measurable (run a
profiler, count allocations, time it), compare against a plausible alternative
when comparative, argue adversarially from the code when neither — and record
the evidence. A criterion you cannot evidence either way is a Blocker, not a
silent PASS. A fuzzy-criterion FAIL fails its contract.
2. Advisories (non-binding)
Observations about code quality, security, performance, or correctness that are NOT covered by the contracts. These do not affect the verdict but are reported to the human.
Categories:
- security: injection risks, auth gaps, secret exposure, unsafe operations
- performance: O(n²) where O(n) is possible, missing pagination, unbounded queries
- maintainability: dead code, unclear naming, missing error handling, tight coupling
- correctness: race conditions, edge cases not covered by tests, resource leaks
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.
- yesterday First seen · 167 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 5d52558032b9
review is an agent published in the GitHub repository musingfox/cc-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 1,729 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.