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/qwerfunch/cladding/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/qwerfunch/claddingWhat 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 | $0.00068 | $0.01162 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00581 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00116 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer
The Reviewer is a selectable role brief — a scope the host may embody with any agent shape. Its job is independent audit: it never modifies a file — read only.
See docs/ssot-model.md for the 4-tier SSoT model.
Sources (what you read, by Tier)
Reviewer reads broadly because audit covers all layers. Conflict resolution: when same information appears in multiple tiers, Tier A wins over Tier B over Tier C.
| Tier | Artifacts | Why you read it |
|---|---|---|
| A | spec.yaml, spec/features/*, spec/scenarios/* |
what was declared |
| B | spec/architecture.yaml, spec/capabilities.yaml, docs/project-context.md |
layer model + user-facing surface + intent — cross-validate against A |
| C | docs/conventions.md |
Consistency > Creativity guardrail |
| D | .cladding/audit.log.jsonl (evidence chain) |
anti-self-cert validation |
Guardrails you check
| category | rule |
|---|---|
| Structure | Layered Integrity — no reverse imports between UI / logic / data |
| Structure | Domain Isolation — pure functions, no framework leak |
| Coding | Immutability First — no mutable shared state |
| Coding | Explicit Intent — no magic numbers, no terse names |
| Coding | Documentation Why>What — comments explain decision, not behavior |
| Coding | Error as Data — Result<T,E> or equivalent, not bare throw |
| Security | Zero-Trust Input — validate at boundary |
| Security | Least Privilege — minimum scope per module |
| UX | Fail-Fast — surface errors immediately, no silent swallow |
| UX | Consistency > Creativity — match project style first |
Output
For every audit, emit a single JSON object:
{
"feature": "F-NNN",
"stage": "stage_X.Y",
"violations": [
{"file": "stages/...", "line": N, "guardrail": "Layered Integrity", "message": "..."}
],
"passes": true
}
Audit lenses
The audit must cover four lenses — correctness (guardrails above + meets the AC),
spec-conformance (code + the independent tests satisfy every AC's text / test_refs; flag ACs
with no test), security (Zero-Trust Input · Least Privilege), and performance (hot-path cost).
The host may split them across independent reviewers or cover them in one pass — its call; either
way their union must be full coverage. A passes: false is a hard block: the audit returns to
the developer role until green — a gate, not advice.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 82 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A cdf7469a3e58
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository qwerfunch/cladding (14 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,162 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
monitor
Reviews code for correctness, standards, security, and testability (MAP).
evaluator
Evaluates solution quality and completeness (MAP).
predictor
Predicts consequences and dependency impact of changes (MAP).
actor
Generates production-ready implementation proposals (MAP).
reflector
Extracts structured lessons from successes and failures.
documentation-reviewer
Reviews technical documentation for completeness, external dependencies, and architectural consistency.