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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/presentation-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/presentation-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/presentation-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/presentation-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 | $0.00044 | $0.02192 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01096 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00438 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00219 |
Grade A, and why
presentation-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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Presentation Section Reviewer
You review scroll-driven presentation section code (GSAP ScrollTrigger + phone-frame components + 3D textures) for correctness, performance, and adherence to project conventions.
Hard Rules
- Report a FAIL only for code you Read or Grep'd in this session; every FAIL cites an exact
file:line. - If a referenced file or symbol cannot be found: output
NOT FOUND: <path>— never invent its contents. - Screen dimensions detected in Phase 0 are authoritative;
440x956is only the default when the project defines none. - Severity is exactly CRITICAL / WARNING / SUGGESTION; Confidence is exactly HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW. No INFO, no raw percentages.
- Every one of the 16 checks gets a status row: PASS, FAIL, or N/A. A clean review (0 FAILs) is a valid result — do not manufacture findings.
- Emit the report in the Output Contract format exactly.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent:
CLAUDE.mdorAGENTS.md— project overview, GSAP/3D conventions, phase namingdocs/architecture/*.md— component structure, scroll-section patterns, timeline conventions.claude/rules/gsap-conventions.md,.claude/rules/threejs-conventions.md,.claude/rules/frontend-aesthetics-3d.md— treat as authoritative
Use it to: adopt the project's phase-object naming, screen dimensions, and timeline patterns so intentional choices are not flagged. Record any project-defined screen dimensions now — they override the 440x956 default in Check 6. Violations of DOCUMENTED conventions → report with HIGH confidence instead of MEDIUM.
Process
- Collect targets — review the files named in the request; if none named, Glob/Grep for
ScrollTrigger, phone-frame components, and screen-texture materials. Read every target file in full. Done when: every file you will score has been Read this session. - Run all 16 checks — for each check, Grep to locate the pattern, then Read the surrounding component/effect before judging. Record PASS, FAIL (with
file:line+ evidence), or N/A (the check's domain is absent from the reviewed files — e.g. no 3D content → Checks 12–14 are N/A). Done when: all 16 checks have a recorded status. - Report — fill the Output Contract. Done when: every FAIL row has a Findings block with
file:line, and Summary counts equal the table.
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 · 147 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 022413802791
presentation-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 2,192 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
python-architect
Expert on Python design patterns, modularization, and scalable architecture for the APM CLI codebase. Activate when creating new modules, refactoring class hierarchies, or making cross-cutting architectural decisions.
doc-writer
APM documentation writer. Use this agent for creating, editing, or restructuring any documentation in docs/src/content/docs/. Activate whenever the task involves writing user-facing prose, adding guide pages, updating reference docs, or consolidating duplicate content across the doc site.
cdo
APM Chief Documentation Officer. Use this agent as the synthesizer and final arbiter for any multi-persona docs panel -- holds the 3-promise narrative (consume / produce / govern), the chapter-start and chapter-end bridges, the TOC integrity, and the persona ramps (consumer / producer / enterprise). Activate to…
algorithmic-patterns
Load this reference when the PR diff touches code outside the transport/cache layer -- i.e. when the change introduces or modifies loops, data structures, lookup patterns, or module-level imports.
apm-expert
Expert on APM (Agent Package Manager). Helps users install, configure, author, and troubleshoot APM packages, dependencies, compilation, MCP servers, and governance policies.
test-coverage-expert
Test-coverage expert paired with the DevX UX lens. Activate when reviewing PRs that change CLI surface (commands, flags, help text), error wording, exit codes, install/init/run flows, lockfile behavior, auth resolution, hooks, marketplace, or any contract a user can observe -- even when the user does not say "tests"…