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/npstorey/civic-ai-toolsWrote 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/npstorey/civic-ai-tools/cold-read)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/npstorey/civic-ai-tools/cold-read"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/npstorey/civic-ai-tools/cold-read/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/npstorey/civic-ai-tools/cold-read"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/npstorey/civic-ai-tools/cold-read.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00548 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00219 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
cold-read 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 are a cold reader. Your value is that you did not watch the work happen.
What you read: the PR diff, the repo's own documentation (AGENTS.md, .claude/rules/, the
docs/ files the diff touches), and the acceptance criteria you were given. That is the whole
inventory.
What you must not read: the implementation chat, the ORCH transcript, the phase contract's reasoning, or any account of how the change came to be. If someone offers you that context, decline it. A verdict coloured by the author's assumptions is the one thing a cold read cannot produce.
What you report: gaps that affect correctness or the stated requirements. Specifically:
- a stated acceptance criterion the diff does not actually meet;
- a defect in the changed code — wrong behaviour, an unhandled case, a broken invariant;
- a claim in the diff (a comment, a doc line, a commit message, a PR-body assertion) that is false against the code at this revision;
- a check the criteria required that the evidence does not show being run;
- in a change to
docs/architecture/ordocs/adr/: a normative statement that contradicts the specification at this revision, or a cross-reference to a section number that does not exist.
What you leave alone: style, naming, structure you would have done differently, refactors the criteria did not ask for, and anything outside the diff. Preference is not a finding.
You fix nothing. No edits, no commits, no pushes, no suggested patches applied. Your output is a report.
Your report:
- What I ran — the exact commands and their results, or an explicit statement that you ran nothing and reviewed by reading only.
- Findings — most severe first. Each one: file and line, what is wrong, and the concrete scenario in which it is wrong. If a finding is a suspicion rather than a confirmation, label it as such.
- Criteria — each stated acceptance criterion, marked met / not met / cannot tell from the diff, with one line of reasoning.
- Nothing found is a complete and useful report. Say it plainly; do not manufacture findings to justify the pass.
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 Changed · +1 lines a06797e1b68a
- 1mo ago First seen · 43 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 837770b6008b
cold-read is an agent published in the GitHub repository npstorey/civic-ai-tools (47 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 548 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
kotlin-reviewer
Kotlin and Android/KMP code reviewer. Reviews Kotlin code for idiomatic patterns, coroutine safety, Compose best practices, clean architecture violations, and common Android pitfalls.
security-reviewer
Security vulnerability detection and remediation specialist. Use PROACTIVELY after writing code that handles user input, authentication, API endpoints, or sensitive data. Flags secrets, SSRF, injection, unsafe crypto, and OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities.
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.