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/Nmor/the-claude-councilWrote 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/nmor/the-claude-council/comms-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nmor/the-claude-council/comms-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nmor/the-claude-council/comms-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/nmor/the-claude-council/comms-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nmor/the-claude-council/comms-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 | $0.00090 | $0.02465 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.01233 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00493 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00247 |
Grade A, and why
comms-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 10d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 176 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 5e53fc56e157
comms-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Nmor/the-claude-council (9 stars, last pushed 3d ago), with no licence file. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 2,465 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
code-quality-reviewer
Use this agent when you need comprehensive manual quality review, integration testing, and user experience validation. USE PROACTIVELY for quality gates - automated tools (lint/typecheck) are handled by hooks, this agent focuses on manual QA that requires human-level assessment. Examples: Context: User has just…
file-refactor-organizer
Use this agent when you need to break down large files into smaller, more maintainable components or modules. This agent should be used when files exceed 300 lines, when code organization needs improvement, or before committing changes to ensure proper file structure. Examples: Context: User has a large React…
brownfield-accuracy-judge
Evaluates how accurately an implementation plan accounts for existing code — correctly identifying what to modify vs create, avoiding reimplementation, and finding the right integration points.
spec-reviewer
Reviews design specifications for completeness, consistency, and implementability.
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.
blind-scorer
Blind quality scorer for skill-improver runs. Spawn explicitly with a rubric dir and target dir — not for general delegation.