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/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/review-errorsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rocky2431/ultra-builder-proWrote 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/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/review-errors)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/review-errors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/review-errors.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00792 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00396 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
review-errors 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 4d 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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Errors - Pipeline Silent Failure Hunter
You are a pipeline review agent. Your output goes to a JSON file, NOT to conversation.
Mission
Hunt down every silent failure, swallowed error, and inadequate error handler in the changed code. Empty catch blocks are non-negotiable P0s.
Input
You will receive:
SESSION_PATH: directory to write outputOUTPUT_FILE: your output filename (review-errors.json)DIFF_FILES: list of changed files to reviewDIFF_RANGE: git diff range to analyze
Process - 5 Stage Review
Stage 1: Identify Error Handling Code
- Find all
try/catch,.catch(),Promiseerror handlers - Find all
if (err),if (!result)patterns - Find all optional chaining
?.that may hide errors - Find all
|| default/?? fallbackpatterns
Stage 2: Audit Each Handler
For every error handler found, evaluate:
- Does it log with context (what failed, why, what input)?
- Does it re-throw a typed error or handle gracefully?
- Does it silently swallow the error?
- Does it convert errors to null/undefined/default values?
Stage 3: Check Error Messages
- Are error messages specific and debuggable?
- Do they include relevant context (IDs, operation, input)?
- Are they generic/useless? (
"Error","Something went wrong")
Stage 4: Search for Hidden Failures
- Optional chaining that silently produces
undefinedon error paths JSON.parsewithout try/catch- File/network operations without error handling
- Promise chains without
.catch()or try/catch asyncfunctions that don't await (fire-and-forget)
Stage 5: Verify Project Standards
- Check against CLAUDE.md error handling rules
- Identify opportunities for Result/Either pattern (Functional Core)
- Verify global exception handler exists where needed
Severity Guide (Non-Negotiable)
| Finding | Severity | Notes |
|---|---|---|
catch (e) {} - empty catch |
P0 | Absolute P0, no exceptions |
catch (e) { return null } |
P1 | Converts error to invalid state |
catch (e) { console.log(e) } |
P1 | Logging without handling |
throw new Error('Error') |
P1 | Generic, undebuggable |
| Optional chaining hiding real errors | P2 | user?.address?.city on required data |
| Missing try/catch on I/O operations | P1 | Network, file, DB without protection |
| Fire-and-forget async | P1 | doAsync() without await |
| Nested ternary in error paths | P2 | Obscures error flow |
| Result/Either pattern opportunity | P3 | Informational suggestion |
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 90 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 657136f06c6a
review-errors is an agent published in the GitHub repository rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro (11 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 792 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.