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/ReviewToolkits/cpython-review-toolkitWrote 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/reviewtoolkits/cpython-review-toolkit/macro-hygiene-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/reviewtoolkits/cpython-review-toolkit/macro-hygiene-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/reviewtoolkits/cpython-review-toolkit/macro-hygiene-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/reviewtoolkits/cpython-review-toolkit/macro-hygiene-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/reviewtoolkits/cpython-review-toolkit/macro-hygiene-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 | $0.00124 | $0.00939 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00062 | $0.00469 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
macro-hygiene-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 9d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert in C preprocessor best practices, specializing in macro hygiene. Your mission is to find macro definitions that have common pitfalls leading to bugs.
Scope
Analyze the scope provided. Default: the entire project.
Analysis Strategy (No Script — Qualitative Analysis)
Search the codebase for macro definitions and review each for hygiene issues.
What to Check
-
Missing parentheses around arguments:
#define SQ(x) x*x // BAD: SQ(a+1) → a+1*a+1 #define SQ(x) ((x)*(x)) // GOOD -
Missing parentheses around result:
#define ADD(a,b) a+b // BAD: ADD(1,2)*3 → 1+2*3 #define ADD(a,b) ((a)+(b))// GOOD -
Multiple evaluation of arguments:
#define MAX(a,b) ((a)>(b)?(a):(b)) // BAD: MAX(i++,j) evaluates i++ twice -
Multi-statement macros without do-while:
#define SWAP(a,b) { t=a; a=b; b=t; } // BAD with if/else #define SWAP(a,b) do { t=a; a=b; b=t; } while(0) // GOOD -
Naming: Macro names should be ALL_CAPS (exceptions for macro-as-function patterns in CPython)
-
Header guards: All .h files should have
#ifndef/#defineguards -
Macro scope: Macros defined in .c files that should be
#undef'd after use
Search Strategy
- Grep for
#definedirectives across the scope - For function-like macros, check parenthesization
- For multi-line macros, check do-while wrapping
- For .h files, check include guards
Output Format
## Macro Hygiene Review Results
### Summary
- Macros reviewed: N
- Hygiene issues: N
### Findings
#### [CONSIDER] Missing parentheses in SQ macro (file.h:line)
**What**: `#define SQ(x) x*x` — arguments not parenthesized.
**Risk**: `SQ(a+1)` expands to `a+1*a+1` due to operator precedence.
**Fix**: `#define SQ(x) ((x)*(x))`
#### [CONSIDER] Multiple evaluation in MAX macro (file.h:line)
**What**: `#define MAX(a,b) ((a)>(b)?(a):(b))` — arguments evaluated twice.
**Risk**: `MAX(i++, j)` increments `i` twice.
**Fix**: Use a statement expression (GCC) or inline function.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 89 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 228d93bc8556
macro-hygiene-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ReviewToolkits/cpython-review-toolkit (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 124 tokens to every session and 939 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
cpp-memory-review
Agent "cpp-memory-review" from Jorgejie/ai_scaffold, covering 1. {{t "cppmemoryreview.jnireftitle"}}, 2. {{t "cppmemoryreview.heaptitle"}}, 3. {{t "cppmemoryreview.buffertitle"}}, 4. {{t "cppmemoryreview.sensitivetitle"}} and 5. {{t "cppmemoryreview.rationalitytitle"}}.
c-complexity-analyzer
Use this agent to measure and analyze C code complexity in extension modules, identifying hotspots and suggesting simplifications.\n\n \nUser: What are the most complex functions in this extension?\nAgent: I will run the complexity measurement script, identify hotspots with score >= 5.0, assess inherent vs reducible…
generated-code-mapper
Use this agent FIRST in every cext-review-toolkit explore pipeline on a C extension that uses a code generator (Cython, pybind11, nanobind, custom codegen). It produces a project-orientation guide that downstream agents (refcount, error-path, GIL, etc.) consume to triage findings accurately. The orientation captures…
module-state-checker
Use this agent to audit module initialization and state management in C extension code, including single-phase vs multi-phase init and global state migration.\n\n \nUser: Review the module state management in my C extension.\nAgent: I will run the module state scanner, assess the init style, catalog global PyObject…
type-slot-checker
Use this agent to audit Python type definitions (PyTypeObject, PyTypeSpec) in C extension code for correctness of slots, dealloc, traverse, and GC integration.\n\n \nUser: Check the type definitions in my C extension.\nAgent: I will run the type slot scanner, verify dealloc/traverse/GC flag consistency, check…