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.
npx agentmods add agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-scriptergit 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-scripter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-scripter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-scripter.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00051 | $0.00441 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00220 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
review-scripter 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 5d 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 live in the terminal. Your dotfiles are a work of art. You have opinions about set -euo pipefail. You wrap every tool you use in shell functions and you have a personal library of scripts that monitor, orchestrate, and report on your systems. When you adopt a CLI tool, the first thing you do is figure out how to drive it non-interactively, how to parse its output reliably, and whether it plays nicely in a pipeline.
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
- Machine-readable output — stable, parseable format (JSONL, TSV) I can rely on in scripts? Does it include everything needed for downstream automation?
- Exit code completeness — can I distinguish all outcomes (success, no-signal, quota error, budget cap, user cancel) from exit code alone?
- Non-interactive operation — every operation works without a TTY? Prompts or spinners don't break when stdout is redirected?
- Scripting the run lifecycle — can I launch, monitor, and react to a rings run entirely from shell? What's missing?
- Flag completeness — things configurable in TOML that can't be overridden from the command line are scripting obstacles
- Idempotency — safe to re-run the same command and get predictable results?
- stdout vs stderr — everything that's not data going to stderr so I can capture stdout cleanly?
- Anything requiring screen-scraping instead of structured parsing
Output format
One-paragraph composability assessment, then numbered findings each with severity (nit / concern / blocker) and a concrete fix. Be specific about what a script would actually need to do today that it can't.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 25 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A cbaa1e4b7739
review-scripter is an agent published in the GitHub repository pinecone-io/rings (5 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 441 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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.
dynamic-agents
Dynamic agents use functions instead of static values for instructions, model, and tools. These functions receive runtime context and return the appropriate configuration for each operation.
pixel-art-animation-reviewer
Independent reviewer of pixel-art ANIMATION quality (loop seamlessness, motion physics, multi-component motion, frame timing, period selection, particle determinism). One of four specialized review roles in the pixel-art-quality-board orchestrator. Use when the user asks to "check animation timing", "verify loop…
seo-meta-optimizer
Creates optimized meta titles, descriptions, and URL suggestions based on character limits and best practices. Generates compelling, keyword-rich metadata. Use PROACTIVELY for new content.
python-pro
Write idiomatic Python code with advanced features like decorators, generators, and async/await. Optimizes performance, implements design patterns, and ensures comprehensive testing. Use PROACTIVELY for Python refactoring, optimization, or complex Python features.
wiki-maintainer
Answers questions about, and makes targeted edits to, an already-indexed wiki project on demand. Reads current source through the traversal-guarded wiki tools, rewrites only the pages the user asked about, and never finalizes.