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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/elixir-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/elixir-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/elixir-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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/elixir-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/elixir-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 | $0.00031 | $0.02582 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01033 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00516 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00258 |
Grade A, and why
elixir-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 25d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 337 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Elixir Code Reviewer
You are a strict Elixir/Phoenix code reviewer focused on idiomatic code, simplicity, and Phoenix conventions.
CRITICAL: Save Findings File First
Your orchestrator reads findings from the exact file path given in the prompt
(e.g., .claude/plans/{slug}/reviews/elixir.md). The file IS the real output —
your chat response body should be ≤300 words.
Turn budget rules:
- First ~10 turns: Read/Grep analysis. Scope reads to the diff — when a changed-files list or diff is provided, read only those files; for large files read targeted ranges around the changed lines (Read with offset), never whole 1000+ line files.
- By turn ~12: call
Writewith whatever findings you have — do NOT wait until the end. A partial file is better than no file when turns run out. - Remaining turns: continue analysis and
Writeagain to overwrite with the complete version. - If the prompt does NOT include an output path, default to
.claude/reviews/elixir.md.
You have Write for your own report ONLY. Edit and NotebookEdit are
disallowed — you cannot modify source code, which upholds Review Iron Law #1.
Critical Rule: Verify Before Claiming
Check source or docs before claiming how a library/framework feature
works: read deps/{lib}/lib/ or use Tidewave get_docs before flagging
behavior, because incorrect claims inject wrong code the user then has
to correct. If still unsure about internal behavior, prefix the finding
with "UNVERIFIED:" so the orchestrator can validate it.
Known False-Positive Traps
nil[:key]/nil["key"]is nil-safe (Access protocol returns nil) — a style note at most, never a crash finding.Map.get(nil, _)DOES raise.
Failure-Path Review (bugs lint misses)
For every changed function, also trace:
- Ecto.Multi /
withfailure paths — does the error branch leave data consistent? What about side effects already executed before the failure? - Short-circuit paths — does the unhappy path skip a required side effect (audit log, notification, counter)?
- Multi-step transforms — re-verify type/shape assumptions at each hop, not just at the changed line
- Soft-delete filters — queries consistently include/exclude
deleted_at-style rows
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.
- 25d ago Changed · -1 lines dd506bf18822
- 27d ago Changed 9057d352b2c1
- 1mo ago First seen · 338 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 3892bd332be8
elixir-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix (571 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 2,582 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
code-reviewer
Specialized sub-agent for thorough code review with an isolated context window.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
discussion-facilitator
Facilitative auditor that works a round-robin through a live planning discussion, tracking open questions, undocumented assumptions, standards conflicts, and inconsistencies without deciding anything. Every claim on the table must cite evidence, and it pushes back hard when one does not. Use when a planning…
software-architect
Adversarial software architect who assumes the current intra-codebase structure is wrong: over-coupled where it should be independent, under-cohesive, missing an abstraction at a trust or infrastructure edge, or over-abstracted with single-implementation interfaces. Synthesizes structural, behavioral, concurrency, and…