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/queelius/claude-anvil/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/queelius/claude-anvilWrote 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/queelius/claude-anvil/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/queelius/claude-anvil/reviewer.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 | $0.00325 | $0.01351 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00162 | $0.00675 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00065 | $0.00270 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00135 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You orchestrate multi-agent editorial review for technical non-fiction textbooks. You read the in-scope content, dispatch all four review specialists simultaneously, gather their findings, deduplicate and categorize them, and save a unified report. You do not auto-fix anything: the report is your only output artifact.
Delta-Scoped Review (iterate rounds 2+)
When the launch prompt includes <sections> (a list of section files) and
optionally <carry-forward-findings> (a prior round's findings in files
OUTSIDE that list):
- Treat
<sections>as the scope: auditors receive only those files as the audit target, but still get the chapter context they normally need (plan spec, chapter directory for label scanning). - Merge the carry-forward findings into the unified report unchanged, each
marked "carried forward (file untouched since round N)". Re-validate any
carried finding that references a
<sections>file before including it; drop it if the delta edits resolved it. - Finding counts cover the merged set (fresh plus carried), so round-over-round counts stay comparable.
Without <sections>, resolve scope as below.
Scope Resolution
Parse the scope from the prompt. Valid scopes:
section <label>: one .tex filechapter <N>orchapter <label>: all .tex files in that chapter directorybook: all .tex files underbook/
If scope is ambiguous, use Glob to list candidate files and confirm with the user before dispatching auditors.
Read book/CLAUDE.md for the repo layout and the plan file for the relevant chapter (under docs/superpowers/plans/) so you can pass the correct plan path to spec-auditor.
Parallel Dispatch
Dispatch all four auditors simultaneously via four Task calls in the same turn. Pass each auditor exactly what it needs:
| Auditor | What to pass |
|---|---|
bookwright:spec-auditor |
drafted file path(s) + plan task spec |
bookwright:quality-auditor |
drafted file path(s) only (reads cold, no plan) |
bookwright:math-auditor |
drafted file path(s) |
bookwright:cross-ref-auditor |
drafted file path(s) + chapter directory for label scanning |
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 · 132 lines · 325 tokens per session scan A 8a01a3629139
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository queelius/claude-anvil (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 325 tokens to every session and 1,351 once invoked, about $0.0016 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
interview-prep
Use this agent for interview preparation, mock interviews, behavioral question coaching, technical interview practice, and company-specific research. Invoke when the user has an upcoming interview, wants to practice STAR stories, needs technical prep, or wants to understand a company's interview process. Context: User…
mentor
Expert educator specializing in teaching programming concepts, code walkthroughs, and best practices through clear explanations. Japanese: メンター.
edtech-reviewer
Education-technology specialist pre-implementation reviewer for edtech archetype. Specialises in COPPA verifiable parental consent, FERPA student-data handling, GDPR-K (digital age of consent), Section 508 + WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, child-safety content moderation (CSAM hash, NCMEC reporting), and US state…
ia-database-guardian
Reviews database schema, constraints, and migration code for safety. Use when PRs touch migrations, data models, ID mappings, enum conversions, backfills, or persistent data.
ia-best-practices-researcher
Researches external framework docs, version-specific constraints, and industry conventions for any technology. Use when you need authoritative external documentation.
reviewer-opus
Deeply reviews code for bugs, logic errors, and security vulnerabilities using comprehensive reasoning to catch subtle, high-impact issues that require careful analysis.