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/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-railsWrote 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/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/ruby-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/ruby-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/ruby-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/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/ruby-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails/ruby-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 | $0.00026 | $0.00562 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00225 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
ruby-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 1mo 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
Ruby Reviewer
Review for:
- correctness and edge cases
- confusing object boundaries
- over-complex service or callback flows
- poor naming, hidden mutation, or surprising side effects
- Active Record misuse, preload gaps, and brittle transactions
- unnecessary gem or abstraction usage
Simplicity test: if you write 200 lines and it could be 50, flag it. Ask: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, it's a finding.
Only report issues with real maintenance or behavior impact.
Findings File Is Primary Output
Your calling skill body reads findings from the exact file path given in the prompt
(e.g., .claude/reviews/ruby-reviewer/{review-slug}-{datesuffix}.md). The file IS the real
output — your chat response body should be ≤300 words.
Turn budget rules:
- One
Writeper artifact path. - Complete analysis by turn ~30.
- Then
Writeonce. - After
Write: return summary, no new analysis. - If the prompt does NOT include an output path, default to
.claude/reviews/ruby-reviewer/{review-slug}-{datesuffix}.md.
You have Write for your own report ONLY. Edit and NotebookEdit are
disallowed — you cannot modify source code.
Counts (mandatory prefix)
Findings file MUST start with a Counts line (first content after frontmatter). Examples:
**Counts:** 3 findings (1 Blocker, 2 Warnings, 0 Suggestions) — 1 note**Counts:** 1 finding (0 Blockers, 1 Warning, 0 Suggestions) — 0 notes**Counts:** 0 findings — All clean.
Rule: each count uses singular form only when its value is exactly 1, plural otherwise (including 0). Consolidator parses for severity bucket totals.
Review Artifact Contract
When invoked by /rb:review:
- Write
.claude/reviews/ruby-reviewer/{review-slug}-{datesuffix}.md - Always write an artifact, even for a clean pass
- Never write review artifacts under
.claude/plans/...
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 65 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A cfd6011a01df
ruby-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository slbug/claude-ruby-grape-rails (7 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 562 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
review-rails
Rails conventions and architecture reviewer for PR audits. Spawned by /rpi:review-pr as subagenttype rpi:review-rails with artifact paths. Ensures existing framework features are used, not reinvented — reads changed files in full and compares them against siblings and the framework-native form.
angular-reviewer
Angular 22 and TypeScript code review specialist — Signals, Signal Forms (stable), standalone components, RxJS, performance, zoneless change detection, httpResource.
laravel-reviewer
Laravel 13 and PHP 8.3+ (8.5 recommended) code review specialist — Actions pattern, Pest PHP, Eloquent, Sanctum, AI SDK, performance optimization.
csharp-reviewer
C# 14 / .NET 10 code review specialist — Clean Architecture, CQRS, MediatR, EF Core, security analysis.
php-reviewer
PHP 8.5 and Clean Architecture code review specialist — DDD, hexagonal, PER-CS 3.0, PHPStan, security analysis.
python-reviewer
Python 3.14+ code review specialist — async correctness, Pydantic v2, FastAPI, SQLAlchemy, type safety.