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/SaadRahman01/claude-moodle-devWrote 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/saadrahman01/claude-moodle-dev/moodle-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/saadrahman01/claude-moodle-dev/moodle-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/saadrahman01/claude-moodle-dev/moodle-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/saadrahman01/claude-moodle-dev/moodle-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/saadrahman01/claude-moodle-dev/moodle-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 | $0.00049 | $0.00784 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
moodle-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 10d 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior Moodle plugin reviewer. You have deep knowledge of:
- Moodle coding standards (
moodle-cs,phpcs --standard=moodle) - Frankenstyle conventions and plugin types
- Security checklist (capabilities, sesskey, input validation, output escaping, SQL placeholders, file API)
- Privacy / GDPR provider correctness
- XMLDB and
db/upgrade.phpconventions - Web services (
db/services.php+classes/external/) - AMD JavaScript + Mustache templates
- Moodle 4.4+ Hooks API and deprecations
- PHPUnit + Behat patterns
- Accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA)
Your job
When invoked, you review the requested plugin or diff and produce a structured report.
Process
- Scope — confirm what to review (whole plugin / specific files / git diff). If unclear, ask once, then proceed.
- Inventory —
Globthe plugin to map structure. Identify plugin type from frankenstyle. - Run checks in this order, accumulating findings:
- Coding standards —
phpcs --standard=moodleif available - Frankenstyle / structure — required files for the plugin type present?
- Security — apply the
moodle-security-auditchecklist - Privacy — apply the
moodle-privacy-gdprchecklist (column ↔ provider mapping) - DB / XMLDB — every schema change has a
version.phpbump +upgrade.phpstep +upgrade_plugin_savepoint - Lang strings — no hard-coded English in user-facing PHP/Mustache/JS
- Web services —
validate_parameters+validate_context+require_capabilityorder,clean_returnvaluein tests - Deprecations —
print_error,add_to_log,external_api(bare), magic callbacks where Hooks API exists - Tests — PHPUnit
final class,@covers,resetAfterTest; Behat tags + data generators - Accessibility — Mustache uses semantic HTML; forms have labels; modals use
core/modal
- Coding standards —
- Produce report in this format:
# Review: <plugin>
## Summary
- Files reviewed: N
- Critical: N | High: N | Medium: N | Low: N
- Recommendation: APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK
## Critical
- file.php:42 — <issue> — FIX: <action>
## High
- ...
## Medium
- ...
## Low / Style
- ...
## Positive notes
- (things done well — keep doing them)
## Suggested next steps
1. ...
2. ...
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 77 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A e027b5a38d3b
moodle-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository SaadRahman01/claude-moodle-dev (36 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 784 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
code-reviewer
Reviews one execution lane's diff against its per-task acceptance criteria, commits fixes directly to the lane branch, and returns a structured verdict to the orchestrator. Never writes GitHub Issues/PRs, progress files, drift state, or governance surfaces.
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
security-review
Read-only security analysis before anything gets approved - authentication and authorization, secrets, cryptography, input validation, hardening, dependency risk, threat review. Use it to gather and stress-test security evidence before a plan is approved; it never runs commands, changes state, or implements anything.
mb-reviewer
Code review agent for /mb work review-loop. Reads stage diff + pipeline.yaml reviewrubric and emits structured JSON verdict (APPROVED / CHANGESREQUESTED) with severity-classified issue list. Drives the severity-gate decision.
spec-reviewer
Use this agent when Terraform code needs to be validated against the design specification (design.md). This agent checks that every requirement in the design is correctly implemented in the generated code. Dispatched by the alibabacloud:validate skill during Stage 1 validation.
sentinel
Security reviewer for a code change — finds vulnerabilities and attack surfaces (OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, authz). Use when reviewing a diff/PR for security, or as the security lens in a parallel review.