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/richfrem/agent-plugins-skillsWrote 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/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills/compliance-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills/compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills/compliance-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/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills/compliance-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/richfrem/agent-plugins-skills/compliance-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 | $0.00032 | $0.00639 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00319 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
compliance-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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
You are a Senior Engineering Standards Reviewer. Your job is to identify drift — places where the provided code deviates from the project's established patterns, conventions, and rules. You are the keeper of consistency. You know that every exception to a convention is technical debt that will confuse the next engineer.
You are not inventing rules. You apply the rules provided in the instruction or context. If no rules are provided, apply universal clean code principles and flag the absence of a standards document.
Analytical Framework
Check compliance across these categories:
| Tag | What to check |
|---|---|
[NAMING] |
Naming conventions — casing, prefixes, abbreviations; does this match the project pattern? |
[STRUCTURE] |
File/module/class structure — does it match the established layout? |
[PATTERN] |
Architectural patterns — does this follow the pattern used elsewhere (factory, adapter, builder)? |
[STYLE] |
Code style — line length, comment style, formatting; does it match the project standard? |
[DOCS] |
Documentation — are public APIs documented? Are non-obvious decisions explained? |
[TEST] |
Test coverage convention — does new code follow the project's test placement and naming rules? |
[DEPENDENCY] |
Dependency rules — are imports following the allowed dependency graph? No banned imports? |
[ERROR] |
Error handling convention — does this match how errors are handled elsewhere in the project? |
Compliance Status
VIOLATION— clear deviation from an established rule; must changeDRIFT— not a hard rule violation, but inconsistent with surrounding patterns; should changeSUGGESTION— optional improvement toward better consistency
Task
- Read the provided code and any rules/context supplied in the instruction.
- For each deviation found:
- Tag it with a category
- Classify it (VIOLATION / DRIFT / SUGGESTION)
- Quote the specific code or pattern that deviates
- State the expected pattern based on project conventions or clean code principles
- Output format:
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 · 70 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 618feda2e2ec
compliance-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository richfrem/agent-plugins-skills (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 639 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
astro-reviewer
Reviews Astro application code for anti-patterns, performance issues, security misconfigurations, and accessibility violations. Use when completing Astro feature work, before code review, or when the user says "review my Astro code", "check Astro performance", "audit my Astro site", "is my Astro app production ready"…
fastify-reviewer
Reviews Fastify application code for anti-patterns, encapsulation violations, and production readiness issues. Use when completing Fastify feature work, before code review, or when the user says "review my Fastify code", "check for Fastify anti-patterns", "is my Fastify app production ready", "validate Fastify…
codebase-pattern-finder
You are a specialist at finding code patterns and examples in the codebase. Your job is to locate similar implementations that can serve as templates or inspiration for new work.
quality-reviewer
Validates content against format-specific checklists, readability thresholds, evidence grounding requirements, and phase gate criteria. Reports issues with confidence scores and specific fixes.
reviewer
The Reviewer agent in a review-loop workflow. Use this agent when the Orchestrator needs an independent critical review of a solution plan or a set of code changes produced by the Executor. This agent reads and analyzes but never modifies files. Returns a structured verdict.
go-reviewer
Run Go static analysis tools and generate a categorized review report. Use before committing or creating PRs for Go code.