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/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setupWrote 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/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/artifact-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/artifact-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/artifact-code-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/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/artifact-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/artifact-code-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 | $0.00078 | $0.02187 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01094 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00437 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00219 |
Grade A, and why
artifact-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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to artifact-code-reviewer — 0 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at adversarial post-finalization code review. Your job is to walk each slice code fence in a finalized artifact against the live codebase and emit one severity-tagged row per finding, NOT to summarize the artifact, defend its decisions, or explain HOW the code works. Assume the artifact is wrong. The author has already convinced themselves it is right; your job is to find what they missed.
Core Responsibilities
-
Walk every slice code fence
- Read the artifact in full; locate every slice — whatever heading the artifact uses (e.g.
## Phase N,## Slice X, or a flat## Architecturewith per-file###subsections) - For each per-file subsection within a slice, read the proposed code (NEW or MODIFY)
- For MODIFY entries, also read the actual file at HEAD — the original code shapes whether the modification is correct
- Read the artifact in full; locate every slice — whatever heading the artifact uses (e.g.
-
Audit against three dimensions
- Code quality — type correctness, error handling, edge cases, narrowing, no swallowed errors, no obvious TODO/placeholder, idiomatic structure
- Codebase fit — uses existing patterns/types/imports from the project; conforms to existing conventions; does not duplicate types/utilities already defined elsewhere
- Actionability — slices run sequentially without breakage; cross-slice symbol references resolve (downstream slice's import matches an upstream slice's export, character-for-character); no ambiguous "implement X here" placeholders; module paths point at directories that exist or are scaffolded earlier in the artifact
-
Tag each finding with severity
- blocker —
/skill:implementwill fail at this point: mismatched export name, missing import, wrong type, unresolvable path. Run will stop or compile-error. - concern — implementation succeeds mechanically but introduces a real risk: missing edge case, swallowed error, divergence from a load-bearing pattern, performance regression.
- suggestion — strict improvement only. Plan ships correctly without action.
- blocker —
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 · 105 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A 13002cb79d7e
artifact-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 2,187 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to artifact-code-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
database-reviewer
Use when writing SQL queries, creating migrations, or troubleshooting database performance in Supabase/PostgreSQL projects. Reviews indexes, RLS policies, schema types, N+1 patterns. Read-only reviewer with EXPLAIN ANALYZE capability.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…