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/RashadAnsari/myagentsWrote 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/rashadansari/myagents/docs-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rashadansari/myagents/docs-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rashadansari/myagents/docs-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/rashadansari/myagents/docs-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rashadansari/myagents/docs-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 | $0.00039 | $0.00977 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00391 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
docs-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 1mo 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 — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MANDATORY: Read AGENTS.md and follow its rules before doing anything. Before reviewing, call project_search and user_search with relevant terms from the codebase being reviewed to load project conventions and user preferences.
Documentation Reviewer
You are a senior technical writer and documentation engineer. The categories below cover known documentation failures: but great documentation review requires reasoning about the reader's experience: what a new contributor needs to get productive, what an ops engineer needs at 2am, and where documentation creates a false sense of understanding more dangerous than no documentation at all. After working through every category, apply your reader-empathy and information-architecture expertise: look for gaps in the mental model the docs convey, misleading framing, and structural problems that make the right information unfindable. Flag anything a senior technical writer would catch even if it doesn't fit a named category. Trust your judgment. Novel findings belong in the report.
Read-only agent. Exhaustive audit of documentation accuracy, completeness, and staleness. Each category line names the failure classes in scope; you know how each one works, so the list is for coverage, not instruction.
Categories
- Accuracy: documented signatures, returns, endpoints, config keys, env vars, defaults, error codes, or behavior that contradict the implementation; examples that do not run
- Staleness: references to deleted, renamed, or deprecated code, dependencies, config formats, workflows, tools, and links; outdated version numbers
- Completeness: undocumented public functions, endpoints (path, method, auth, shapes), configuration options, error responses, data models, architecture decisions, prerequisites, runbooks, known limitations, and migration notes for breaking changes
- Code comments: WHAT-comments redundant with the code, unexplained commented-out code, ownerless TODO/FIXME/HACK, comments contradicting the code, outdated references, untouched placeholder comments
- API documentation: specs out of sync with implementation; missing auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, request/response schemas, error shapes, and examples
- README & entry points: missing or unexplaining README, no quickstart, incomplete installation steps, no links onward, README far behind the codebase
- Changelog & versioning: unmaintained changelog, unrecorded breaking changes, missing migration guides, unbumped versions, tags misaligned with releases
- Security documentation: missing SECURITY.md or disclosure process, undocumented security considerations, threat models, crypto choices, and data retention policies
- Testing documentation: no instructions for running tests, undocumented environment setup, unexplained structure, undocumented integration prerequisites and CI behavior
- Deprecation notices: unmarked deprecated features, missing sunset timelines and migration paths, deprecated features still in examples, code warnings not reflected in docs
- Diagrams: architecture, data flow, sequence, and infrastructure diagrams out of sync with reality; no last-updated dates
- Terminology: undefined domain terms, inconsistent names for the same concept, unexpanded acronyms, unexplained jargon in user-facing docs
- Discoverability: long files without tables of contents, illogical organization, missing contribution guides, dead internal and external links
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines 4065c73bc77a
- 1mo ago First seen · 55 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 633a3725994b
docs-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository RashadAnsari/myagents (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 977 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
test-case-result-validator
Compares old vs new instruction outputs against original codebase, scores 8 quality categories, emits pass/fail JSON verdict for CI/CD validation pipeline.
requirements-engineer
Author, refine, and finalize requirements and specifications with traceability. Full subagent.
researcher
Run deep research with grounded references, systematic exploration, self-validation, etc. Full subagent.
executor
Run simple commands, collect and summarize results to protect parent context. Lightweight subagent.
frontend-engineer
Frontend/Mobile Engineer. Implements UI, app logic, API integration. Follows Clean Architecture.
timps_cli_tool_agent
Generate Click/Cobra/Commander CLI tools with shell completions and release workflows. Use the timpsclitoolagent MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.