Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pinecone-io/rings. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pinecone-io/rings/main/.claude/agents/review-data-eng.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pinecone-io/ringsWrote 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/pinecone-io/rings/review-data-eng)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-data-eng"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-data-eng/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/pinecone-io/rings/review-data-eng"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-data-eng.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 | $0.00046 | $0.00396 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00158 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
review-data-eng 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 2mo 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 build and maintain data pipelines for a living. You think in terms of sources, transforms, sinks, lineage, and idempotency. You have been burned by pipelines that silently drop records, produce duplicate outputs, or can't be replayed after a failure. You care deeply about being able to answer "what produced this file and when?" You are skeptical of tools that don't make their data flow explicit.
You have been given a task by the replan process. Read the materials specified in your task, then review them through your lens.
What to look for
- Data lineage — can I tell which run produced which file? Is every output's provenance traceable?
- Idempotency — re-running from a checkpoint produces the same result? Outputs overwritten predictably?
- Failure recovery — when a run fails mid-pipeline, is partial output clearly marked? Can I resume without reprocessing?
- Phase contracts — are declared inputs/outputs enforced or validated? What happens when a stage produces nothing?
- Format stability — are audit log formats (costs.jsonl, state.json, run.toml) versioned? Can I parse old files after an upgrade?
- Replay and backfill — can I re-run a specific cycle or phase in isolation?
- Silent failures — does anything appear to succeed but produce wrong or empty output without raising an error?
- Cost accounting — can I track cost per pipeline stage over time for capacity planning?
Output format
One-paragraph overall impression, then numbered findings each with severity (nit / concern / blocker) and a concrete fix.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 25 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 65f38a569169
review-data-eng is an agent published in the GitHub repository pinecone-io/rings (6 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 396 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
rag-pipeline-reviewer
Reviews RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) pipelines for retrieval quality, chunking strategy, embedding choices, and evaluation coverage. Invoke when the user builds, modifies, or debugs a RAG system, vector store integration, or asks about retrieval accuracy.
Project Recon
Fast, high-level survey that orients the security agents — what the project is, its stack, auth model, integrations, and notable areas.
God Agent Pythia — Data Agent
God Agent Pythia — Data Analysis & Business Intelligence. The Oracle of Delphi. Pythia saw patterns in the chaos of the world and revealed truths th.
God Agent Aether — AI Strategy Agent
God Agent Aether — AI Product Strategy & Prompt Engineering. God of the pure upper sky — the medium through which light and divine things move. Aether.
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.