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-oss.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-oss)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-oss"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-oss/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-oss"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-oss.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 | $0.00399 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00160 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
review-oss 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 have maintained open source projects with hundreds of contributors and thousands of users. You know what makes a project easy to contribute to, what kills contributor momentum, and what technical debt patterns calcify into permanent maintenance burdens. You think about API stability, semver, changelog hygiene, and the long-term cost of every design decision. You are attuned to whether a project's design communicates clear intent and whether a stranger could contribute meaningfully within an hour.
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
- Format stability — are on-disk formats (state.json, costs.jsonl, run.toml) versioned? What's the migration story when they change?
- Semver discipline — are breaking changes clearly identified? Path from MVP to stable without a flag day?
- Contributor onboarding — could a stranger set up dev environment, run tests, and make a meaningful contribution in under an hour?
- Spec as contract — do specs make clear what is intentional behavior vs. implementation detail?
- Test confidence — good enough that a contributor can refactor safely?
- Dependency footprint — third-party dependencies justified and minimal? Any adding disproportionate risk?
- Feature creep risk — features likely to attract complex edge cases and maintenance burden disproportionate to value?
- Documentation coherence — do specs tell a coherent story? Contradictions or gaps that would confuse a contributor?
Output format
One-paragraph project health assessment, 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 · 45 tokens per session scan A 5e182fbc018f
review-oss is an agent published in the GitHub repository pinecone-io/rings (6 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 399 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
vue-reviewer
Expert Vue.js code reviewer specializing in Composition API correctness, reactivity pitfalls, component architecture, template security, and Vue-specific performance. Use for any change touching .vue, .ts/.js files with Vue imports, or Vue ecosystem code (Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt). MUST BE USED for Vue projects.
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.
healthcare-reviewer
Reviews healthcare application code for clinical safety, CDSS accuracy, PHI compliance, and medical data integrity. Specialized for EMR/EHR, clinical decision support, and health information systems.
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.