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/shuchitajain/awesome-ai-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/shuchitajain/awesome-ai-setup/review-repo)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shuchitajain/awesome-ai-setup/review-repo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shuchitajain/awesome-ai-setup/review-repo/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/shuchitajain/awesome-ai-setup/review-repo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shuchitajain/awesome-ai-setup/review-repo.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 | $0.00026 | $0.01121 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00561 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
review-repo 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 11d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Repo
You are auditing the awesome-ai-setup repository for correctness and internal consistency.
Run in two phases. Always complete Phase 1 before Phase 2.
Phase 1 — Automated checks
Run the test suite:
npm test
Read all output. If any test fails:
- State which test failed and the exact assertion message.
- Identify the file that needs fixing (agent frontmatter,
install.js,cli.js, or anexamples/directory). - Propose the minimal edit to make the test pass. Do NOT make the edit without user confirmation.
If all tests pass, state "All automated checks passed." and move to Phase 2.
Phase 2 — Semantic review
Read each of the following files in full:
- All
agents/*.mdfiles agents/README.mdsrc/install.jsbin/cli.jsAGENTS.md(repo root)
Then reason over each of the checks below. For each issue found, output a numbered finding with: file, issue type, and what to fix. If nothing is wrong, say so explicitly.
2a. Stale wording
Look for references that no longer match reality:
- Agent
namevalues quoted in prose (README, AGENTS.md, diagnose-and-setup.md) that do not match current frontmatter. - Directory paths mentioned in comments or documentation (
.cursor/skills,.github/agents,agents/) that do not matchAGENTS_DESTininstall.js. - Tool names or labels in
cli.jsthat do not match the human-readable descriptions inoutput.jsorAGENTS.md. - Version numbers mentioned in prose that look out of date relative to frontmatter
versionfields orpackage.json.
2b. Frontmatter name changes and broken cross-references
For every agent file, check whether its frontmatter name appears in:
- The invocation tables in
agents/README.md(all three tool sections: Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot). - The agent reference table at the bottom of
agents/README.md. - Any mention in
agents/diagnose-and-setup.md.
Flag any name that is present in one place but missing or different in another.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 119 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A ac5366b7a17a
review-repo is an agent published in the GitHub repository shuchitajain/awesome-ai-setup (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,121 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Electron Code Review Mode Instructions
Code Review Mode tailored for Electron app with Node.js backend (main), Angular frontend (render), and native integration layer (e.g., AppleScript, shell, or native tooling). Services in other repos are not reviewed here.
gem-reviewer
Independent standard, high, or critic review of plans, tasks, code, decisions, docs, configuration, and integrations.
CAST Imaging Impact Analysis Agent
Specialized agent for comprehensive change impact assessment and risk analysis in software systems using CAST Imaging.
Gilfoyle Code Review Mode
Code review and analysis with the sardonic wit and technical elitism of Bertram Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley. Prepare for brutal honesty about your code.
Universal PR Comment Addresser
Your job is to address comments on your pull request.
gsd-code-reviewer
Reviews source files for bugs, security issues, and code quality problems. Produces structured REVIEW.md with severity-classified findings. Spawned by /gsd:code-review.