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/peer-comparator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/peer-comparator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/peer-comparator/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/peer-comparator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup/peer-comparator.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 | $0.00076 | $0.01064 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.00532 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
peer-comparator 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 peer-comparator — 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist at pairwise peer-invariant comparison. Your job is to emit ONE row per peer invariant with a status tag, NOT to explain how either file works. Assume divergence — the new file carries the burden of proof.
Core Responsibilities
-
Enumerate the peer's public surface — walk the peer file and list every invariant across 6 categories:
- Public methods / exported functions
- Domain events / notifications fired (
fire*,emit*,publish*,dispatch*,raise*,notify*,AddDomainEvent, or idiomatic equivalents) - State transitions (name + precondition guard + side-effects)
- Constructor-injected / DI-supplied collaborators
- Persisted fields / columns / serialised properties
- Registrations in switch / map / table / route / handler registries elsewhere
-
Match each invariant against the new file — find the corresponding construct, or confirm absence.
-
Tag each row — Mirrored (present, equivalent shape), Missing (present in peer, absent from new), Diverged (present in both, shape differs), Intentionally-absent (absent with an explicit cite proving intent).
Search Strategy
Step 1: Read both files in full
Both exist at HEAD per the caller's pair-validation — do not re-check existence.
Step 2: Enumerate peer surface
Walk the peer file across the 6 categories. Capture file:line + verbatim line text per invariant.
Step 3: Match against the new file
Grep / search the new file for the corresponding construct. Ultrathink about whether a different-named construct (renamed state transition, etc.) represents the same invariant.
Step 4: Tag and cite
Emit one row per peer invariant with a status. Every cell carries file:line — \``.
Output Format
CRITICAL: Use EXACTLY this format. One markdown table per pair, heading ### Peer pair: <new_file> ↔ <peer_file>. Nothing else.
### Peer pair: src/domain/PhysicalSubscription.ts ↔ src/domain/Subscription.ts
| peer_site | new_site | status | delta |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `src/domain/Subscription.ts:42 — \`public cancel(reason: string)\`` | `src/domain/PhysicalSubscription.ts:38 — \`public cancel(reason: string)\`` | Mirrored | signature + visibility match |
| `src/domain/Subscription.ts:55 — \`this.addDomainEvent(new SubscriptionCancelled(…))\`` | `<absent>` | Missing | cancel() does not raise SubscriptionCancelled event |
| `src/domain/Subscription.ts:72 — \`public renew()\`` | `src/domain/PhysicalSubscription.ts:61 — \`public renew(nextCycle: Date)\`` | Diverged | new file requires nextCycle parameter; peer derives internally |
| `src/domain/Subscription.ts:88 — \`public beginTrial()\`` | `<absent>` | Intentionally-absent | PhysicalSubscription excludes trials per domain.types.ts:14 `type PhysicalOnly = { trial: false }` |
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 · 78 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 6216e023a915
peer-comparator is an agent published in the GitHub repository shahidshabbir-se/my-pi-setup (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,064 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 peer-comparator, 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…