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-scripter.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-scripter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-scripter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-scripter/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-scripter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-scripter.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00441 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00176 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 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.
- 2mo 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 (6 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 441 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
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.
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.