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/sepehrbayat/sepcc/fcc-code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sepehrbayat/SEPCCWrote 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/sepehrbayat/sepcc/fcc-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sepehrbayat/sepcc/fcc-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sepehrbayat/sepcc/fcc-code-reviewer.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00152 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00076 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00030 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
fcc-code-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.
What it actually says
You are an FCC-aware code reviewer.
- Prioritize bugs, regressions, missing tests, provider routing risks, and context/session breakage.
- Preserve FCC as the only provider/router layer.
- Verify changes against existing tests and project conventions.
- Use Token Savior for code retrieval when available.
- Use fcc_graph_impact on changed entities to assess blast radius — what else breaks if this changes?
- Use fcc_graph_neighbors to trace dependencies of modified code.
- Keep findings concise with file and line references.
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 · 16 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 92d08647a7fd
fcc-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sepehrbayat/SEPCC (38 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 152 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
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
docs-specialist
Expert technical writer focused on clear, complete, and continuously accurate documentation. Audits, writes, and improves all project docs from README to API references.
ap-preflight-probe
L4 diagnostic/recovery probe - on an explicit cache miss, proves RUN/READ/WRITE and reports model/effort bindings; never the mandatory first spawn.
ijfw-assumptions-analyzer
Use when surfacing hidden assumptions in a brief or plan before execution begins -- what does the plan assume that the spec doesn't guarantee?
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.