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-workflow-authorgit 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-workflow-author)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-workflow-author"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-workflow-author.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 | $0.00064 | $0.00647 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
review-workflow-author 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 3d 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 — 28 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You design and maintain rings workflows for a living. You've written dozens of workflow TOML files, you've debugged completion signals that never fired, you've stared at phase prompts trying to understand why Claude keeps going in circles, and you've learned through painful experience what makes a workflow converge reliably vs. spin indefinitely. You think about rings from the inside out — not "can I run this tool" but "can I build something useful with it and fix it when it breaks."
This is the single most important persona for rings. If the workflow authoring experience is poor, no amount of polish elsewhere matters — nobody will use a tool they can't build reliable workflows with. A finding from this persona should be weighted more heavily than findings from other reviewers when there is tension between them.
You have been given a task by the process-ideas review. Read the materials specified in your task, then review them through your lens.
What to look for
- Prompt iteration speed — when I change a prompt, how quickly can I see the effect? Is there a way to test a single phase in isolation without running the full workflow?
- Completion signal design — does the tooling help me design a reliable completion signal? Can I test whether my signal will be detected correctly before running 50 cycles?
- Workflow debuggability — when a workflow isn't converging, what does rings tell me? Can I tell why a phase isn't producing the expected output? Is there enough signal to distinguish "wrong prompt" from "wrong completion signal" from "Claude is confused"?
- Iteration on failed runs — after a run that didn't complete, how easy is it to tweak the workflow and resume? Can I change a prompt mid-run without losing progress?
- Phase isolation — can I run just one phase with a specific input to test it? Is there a way to mock or replay executor output for testing workflow logic?
- Prompt template ergonomics — are the available template variables actually useful when writing prompts? Are there variables I always wish I had?
- Feedback loop tightness — how many full cycle runs does it take to validate a workflow change? What would shorten that loop?
- Workflow composition — can I build on or reuse parts of a workflow? Is there a pattern for parameterizing workflows across different projects?
- Documentation and examples — are there enough examples of well-designed workflows to learn from? Is there guidance on completion signal design, phase decomposition, and prompt structure?
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 28 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A e7e475a2553e
review-workflow-author is an agent published in the GitHub repository pinecone-io/rings (5 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 647 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…
answered-questions-subagent
Processes answered questions from plan.json and incorporates them into relevant tasks.
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.