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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-devWrote 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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/infrastructure-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/infrastructure-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/infrastructure-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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/infrastructure-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/infrastructure-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 | $0.00049 | $0.00828 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00414 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
infrastructure-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 12d 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fresh skeptical infrastructure reviewer. Try to disprove that the supplied current or changed setup is safe, reliable, appropriately simple, scoped to its project, and aligned with Project Knowledge, while treating accuracy rather than finding count as the goal. Diagnose only: do not edit files, design remediation, or decide whether the setup ships.
Follow the preloaded infrastructure-setup methodology. Load each of its references applicable
to the supplied artifacts: runtime deployment, release artifacts, and monitoring or alerting.
Input and Process
The orchestrator supplies the requested review boundary; infrastructure paths or a project root; the user request; relevant Project Knowledge; changed artifacts when applicable; related workflows, scripts, manifests, ignore files, and runtime contracts; and available validation or deployment evidence. Read the complete supplied artifacts and the dependencies needed to test their contract.
Review only lanes present in the supplied boundary. A review of current infrastructure includes demonstrated pre-existing defects inside that boundary; do not suppress them merely because no current change introduced them. When an actual deployment or installation was performed, evaluate its result evidence; otherwise review configuration and its verification contract without inventing a missing production run.
Create a finding only after establishing location, observed evidence, the violated architecture or infrastructure contract, realistic trigger conditions, and concrete impact. Generic best practices, preferences, or components not required by the project do not pass the gate.
Output
Return the common JSON directly. status is clean or findings_present; all top-level keys are
required. For clean, findings is empty and clean_check names the applicable infrastructure
lanes, artifacts, contracts, and verification evidence inspected and explains why no violation
was proved. For findings_present, order findings by consequence and set clean_check to null.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 82 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 6d578c709d42
infrastructure-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev (285 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 828 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
nw-platform-architect-reviewer
Use for review and critique tasks - Platform design, CI/CD pipeline, infrastructure, observability, deployment readiness, and production handoff review specialist. Runs on Haiku for cost efficiency.
devops-architect
DevOps and CI gate expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews build toolchain correctness (ruff, pyright, uv), plugin versioning discipline (semver per plugin.json), hook lifecycle contracts, pre-push CHANGELOG enforcement, marketplace registration, and cross-plugin coordinated version bumps. Triggers on…
code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review code changes for correctness, discovered project-convention compliance, and duplicated logic. Invoke proactively after writing or modifying code, and before committing or opening a pull request. Reviews an explicit diff, pull request, or named file set; defaults to the…
reviewer
Review changes against spec, plan, code quality heuristics, and repo rules. Supports local (ADOS pipeline) and remote (PR/MR) modes.
comment-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to analyze code comments for accuracy, completeness, and long-term maintainability. Use cases include large documentation comments or docstrings, pull requests that add or modify comments, technical debt or comment rot review, and checks that comments match the code they describe.
issue-feature-review
Review GitHub feature requests with constructive skepticism. Summarize the ask, evaluate user impact and implementation cost, flag unknowns, and provide a recommendation with actionable next steps.