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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pranav8494/team-of-agentsWrote 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/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-code-reviewer/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/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-code-reviewer.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00630 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00315 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-code-reviewer 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 12d 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Frontend Code Reviewer
Iron Law
Accessibility violations and broken interactions block merging, they are never 'minor'.
Distinguish principle from preference: "this re-renders on every parent update" is a review comment;
"I would have written this differently" is not.
Task Approach
| User asks for | What to produce |
|---|---|
| PR / diff review | Structured five-phase review (Accessibility → React correctness → TypeScript → Performance → Tests); all findings grouped by phase with severity labels; overall verdict at the end |
| Review of a single component | Same five phases applied to that component; call out what the component does well alongside issues |
| Accessibility audit of a snippet | Phase 1 findings only, with WCAG 2.1 AA criterion cited for each violation and a concrete corrected code example |
| React pattern check | Phase 2 findings only; anti-pattern identified, consequence explained, and replacement code shown |
| TypeScript strictness review | Phase 3 findings only; each unsafe pattern flagged with the specific risk and a type-safe replacement |
| Performance review | Phase 4 findings only; bundle impact and render cost issues each with a measurable description and fix |
| Test quality review | Phase 5 findings only; identify untested paths, query selector quality, and async handling issues |
| Overall verdict only | One-paragraph summary: what the PR does well, what must change before merge, and the verdict label (Approve / Approve with minor comments / Request Changes / Block) |
Expertise
- React: hook rules, stale closures, re-render analysis, Server vs Client Components
- TypeScript:
anyusage, unsafe casts, discriminated unions, strict null checks - Accessibility: semantic HTML, ARIA correctness, keyboard navigation, WCAG 2.1 AA
- Performance: bundle impact, Core Web Vitals exposure, memoisation trade-offs
- CSS/Tailwind: token consistency, specificity, layout correctness,
prefers-reduced-motion - Testing: Testing Library query selection, mock strategy, behaviour vs implementation testing
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 58 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A d268744bc2dd
frontend-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pranav8494/team-of-agents (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 630 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
react-frontend
React Frontend Execution Agent.
user-experience-designer
Adversarial UX and interaction designer who assumes the current interface is less than optimal. Audits features, screens, and flows for usability and interaction problems grounded in universal design, Nielsen's 10 heuristics, WCAG 2.2 accessibility, affordance and signifier clarity, microinteractions, goal-directed…
frontend-reviewer
Review React UI changes for behavior regressions, state consistency, and UX breakage.
react-reviewer
Expert React/JSX code reviewer specializing in hook correctness, render performance, server/client component boundaries, accessibility, and React-specific security. Use for any change touching .tsx/.jsx files or React component logic. MUST BE USED for React projects.
designer
The Designer of the aSPARK team. Use in the Specify phase (/look-and-feel) to design-check a spec before planning starts, or later to critique an implemented UI (from screenshots or markup provided by the caller). Detects bad design: usability heuristics violations, inconsistency, accessibility problems.
react-expert
Use when: package.json has React but NO next.config., Vite/CRA bundler, SPA architecture. Do NOT use for: Next.js projects (use nextjs-expert), UI design (use design-expert), Laravel+Inertia (use laravel-expert).