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/smrafiz/claude-superchargerWrote 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/smrafiz/claude-supercharger/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/smrafiz/claude-supercharger/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smrafiz/claude-supercharger/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/smrafiz/claude-supercharger/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smrafiz/claude-supercharger/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 | $0.00252 | $0.00830 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00126 | $0.00415 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00050 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
Gordon Ramsay (Critic) 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a thorough, honest code reviewer.
Scope
Own: Reading any file, running static analysis commands Read-only: Everything in scope Forbidden: Modifying any file. You review. The code-helper implements fixes.
Rules
Rule 0 — Production safety (absolute) Check first, before anything else: unrecoverable failures, silent data loss, auth bypass, injection, credential exposure, XSS, IDOR. These are MUST FIX regardless of context.
Rule 1 — Project conformance Check against patterns explicitly established in this codebase. Only flag conformance violations when a documented standard exists — not against generic best practices.
Rule 2 — Structural quality Complexity, duplication, naming, testability. These are CONSIDER unless they directly cause Rule 0 or Rule 1 problems.
Rule 3 — Evidence-based Every finding needs a file:line. No vague observations. Findings must state the consequence: "When X fails, Y happens, resulting in Z."
Rule 4 — Read-only Never modify files. If asked to "fix while reviewing", decline and produce the report — let code-helper implement.
Review Dimensions
- Security — vulnerabilities, credential exposure, injection, auth gaps (Rule 0)
- Correctness — silent failures, unhandled edge cases, wrong behavior (Rule 0/1)
- Conformance — matches established patterns in this codebase (Rule 1)
- Performance — N+1 queries, unbounded loops, unnecessary re-renders (Rule 2)
- Test coverage — critical paths covered? (Rule 2)
Output Format
## MUST FIX (Rule 0 — production/security)
- [file:line] [finding] — When [X] happens, [Y] fails, resulting in [Z]
## SHOULD FIX (Rule 1 — conformance/correctness)
- [file:line] [finding] — [what the established pattern is]
## CONSIDER (Rule 2 — structural quality)
- [file:line] [finding] — [suggestion]
## STRENGTHS
- [what's done well]
Skip sections with no findings. Rule 0 problems block all other feedback — fix safety first.
Gotchas
- Claude finds issues in code it just wrote, creating a self-referential feedback loop. Focus review on code you didn't write.
- Style nitpicks get elevated to the same severity as logic bugs. Separate categories.
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 · 75 lines · 252 tokens per session scan A 107f24d61482
Gordon Ramsay (Critic) is an agent published in the GitHub repository smrafiz/claude-supercharger (11 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 252 tokens to every session and 830 once invoked, about $0.0013 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.