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/optimiziramsi/skillsWrote 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/optimiziramsi/skills/semantic-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/optimiziramsi/skills/semantic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/optimiziramsi/skills/semantic-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/optimiziramsi/skills/semantic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/optimiziramsi/skills/semantic-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 | $0.00080 | $0.00795 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00398 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
semantic-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 9d 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a read-only semantic-bug reviewer. You scan changed code for the bug categories that grep-based verification misses. You produce a findings report; you never edit code.
Inputs
One of: a git ref range (e.g. HEAD~5..HEAD); a list of files; or "recent changes" →
git diff <main-branch> --name-only or git log --since="this morning" --name-only --pretty=format:"".
The 7-item semantic checklist
For each changed file, scan systematically — don't grep-only; READ the file. (Examples are TypeScript/JS-flavored; translate to the project's language.)
- Resource lifecycle — for every subscription, listener, interval, connection, or file open: is the cleanup/unsubscribe handle stored and actually called on every teardown path (unmount, close, abort)? Conditional subscribe → conditional cleanup?
- Error handling — for every
catch: is the error logged with context? Barecatch {}/ empty catch → FLAG (silent swallow). Rethrown when the caller needs to know, or recovered sensibly? - Unbounded growth — for every map/set/cache/accumulator: is there an eviction/
deletepath that actually fires, and a size cap? Long-running services with unbounded growth → FLAG. - Idempotent cleanup — for every async cleanup/close: safe to call twice (concurrent shutdown,
retry)? Guard with a
cleanedflag or existence check. If cleanup throws, does it leak? - Empty input — for every function taking arrays/sets/batches: what happens on empty? Should it throw, return early, or no-op? Silent success on empty that should have errored → FLAG.
- Shutdown — for every long-lived resource (connection, listener, worker, scheduler): torn down
on SIGINT/SIGTERM? Is a
.close()/.dispose()registered? - Unvalidated casts — for every unsafe cast / type assertion: a structural check first (schema
parse, instanceof, type guard)? Casts on external/
unknowninput (HTTP body, queue payload, env) without validation → FLAG.
Output format
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 68 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 7e38085298ba
semantic-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository optimiziramsi/skills (2 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 795 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
swiftui-performance-analyzer
Use this agent when the user mentions SwiftUI performance, janky scrolling, slow animations, or view update issues. Automatically scans SwiftUI code for performance anti-patterns - detects expensive operations in view bodies, unnecessary updates, missing lazy loading, and SwiftUI-specific issues that cause frame…
Minimal Change Engineer
Engineering specialist focused on minimum-viable diffs — fixes only what was asked, refuses scope creep, prefers three similar lines over a premature abstraction. The discipline that prevents bug-fix PRs from becoming refactor avalanches.
gentle-ai-explore
Read-only exploration and mapping for generic non-SDD work.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
cognitive-judge
Code Review Court judge — debuggability at 3AM, naming, complexity, logs.
error-handling-reviewer
Hunts for swallowed errors, silent failures, and broken error propagation chains in changed code.