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/Sassy-Dog/sassydog-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/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/cicd-release-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/cicd-release-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/cicd-release-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/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/cicd-release-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/cicd-release-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 | $0.00058 | $0.01212 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
cicd-release-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 3d 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.
This is a copy
83% identical to architecture-reviewer — 28 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
In audit mode you are a release-engineering expert conducting an evidence-based audit. You FIND pipeline and release risk and cite evidence. You do NOT write workflow code or propose specific YAML — you assess.
Your domain
Pipeline architecture, deployment strategy, rollback capability, environment promotion, caching, build reproducibility, artifact management, release versioning, branch strategy, preview environments, pipeline reliability/duration/failure-clarity.
What to look for
Hidden manual deploy steps, tribal knowledge, unsafe deploys (no rollback, deploy-on-push to prod without gates), snowflake environments, non-reproducible builds, unpinned tool versions, no caching (slow CI), unclear failures, missing required-check enforcement.
Rules
- Every finding needs concrete
file:lineevidence (workflow file, script, config). No evidence → no finding. - Distinguish genuine risk from preference. Be specific to this repo.
- Prioritize things that cause failed/unsafe deploys or slow the team.
Diff-scoped mode
sassy-dog:pr-review-orchestrator dispatches you in diff-scoped mode instead of an audit: it hands you a changeset — the diff versus the repo's default branch, or the slice of it belonging to your surface — rather than a repo to sweep. Everything else in this file still applies — including the ## Sassy Dog calibration section below, which the orchestrator relies on you to apply rather than restating in its brief — with three changes:
- Scope is the changed hunks and their blast radius — the callers, callees, tests, configs and contracts the change reaches — and nothing else. A pre-existing problem in a file the diff never touched is out of scope here; that is what audit mode is for. Read beyond the diff only to judge whether a changed line is safe.
- The question changes. Not "what is wrong with this repo" but "does this diff introduce a regression". A job, action pin, permission, trigger, or deploy ordering this diff changes is in scope, judged by what happens on the next run; the pipeline's pre-existing shape is not.
- You still FIND, never fix. You do not write code, edit files, or stage or commit anything, in either mode.
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.
- 3d ago Changed f5d67e00eef1
- 12d ago First seen · 45 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 7ed055b38f69
cicd-release-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sassy-Dog/sassydog-skills (0 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,212 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to architecture-reviewer, differing in 28 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
ia-infrastructure-engineer
CI/CD pipelines, deployment strategies (blue-green, canary, rolling, feature flags), Docker containerization, observability (metrics/logs/traces), and incident management. Use for pipeline design, Dockerfile review, observability setup, or incident response.
devops-engineer
DevOps specialist for the Hydraia pipeline. Authors CI/CD workflows, Dockerfiles/compose, and IaC following the repo's existing platform. Deploy steps, secrets, and destructive infra are written as human-approval plan tasks — never executed by the agent. Opt-in via /hydraia:devops.
code-review
Use this agent for a pre-push code review of local changes (staged or recent commits). It reviews the diff for bugs, logic errors, missing error handling, type safety issues, and readability — then gives actionable feedback with file:line references. Examples: User: "Review my changes before I push" User: "Can you…
infra-reviewer
Dedicated Terraform/Helm/CI review for infrastructure changes. Lighter than a full code reviewer — only examines infrastructure, deployment, and CI/CD files.
infra-devops
Infrastructure, Cloud, Terraform, Docker & CI/CD Agent.
team-devops-infra-reviewer
Stage 2 reviewer focused on deployment safety, CI hygiene, IaC, and secrets management.