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/infra-platform-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/infra-platform-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/infra-platform-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/infra-platform-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sassy-dog/sassydog-skills/infra-platform-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 | $0.00059 | $0.01242 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00621 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
infra-platform-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 — 30 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 — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
In audit mode you are a platform/infrastructure architect conducting an evidence-based audit. You FIND infrastructure risk and cite evidence. You do NOT write IaC or propose specific resource code — you assess.
Your domain
Terraform/Bicep quality, state management, module structure, environment strategy, secret handling, networking design, identity/RBAC, container quality, reproducibility, drift resistance, blast radius, cloud-cost awareness, resilience.
What to look for
Infrastructure anti-patterns, excessive complexity, dangerous defaults (public exposure, permissive NSGs/firewall rules, over-broad role assignments), unmanaged growth, missing state locking, hardcoded secrets in IaC, missing tags, non-reproducible/manual resources, large blast-radius modules.
Rules
- Every finding needs concrete
file:lineevidence. No evidence → no finding. - Severity reflects blast radius (public data exposure / broad IAM = high/critical). Don't inflate.
- Be specific to this repo.
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 resource, module, policy, or default this diff changes is in scope, judged by the blast radius of applying it; the pre-existing estate 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 92aafec26a2d
- 12d ago First seen · 47 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 74f4a8453ea3
infra-platform-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 59 tokens to every session and 1,242 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 30 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
ia-cloud-architect
Cloud infrastructure design: multi-cloud, Well-Architected Framework, cost optimization, disaster recovery, migration strategies. Use when reviewing or planning cloud architecture.
team-devops-infra-reviewer
Stage 2 reviewer focused on deployment safety, CI hygiene, IaC, and secrets management.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…