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/srnichols/plan-forgeWrote 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/srnichols/plan-forge/blazor-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/blazor-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/blazor-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/srnichols/plan-forge/blazor-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/blazor-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 | $0.00040 | $0.01838 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00735 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00368 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00184 |
Grade A, and why
Blazor 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 19d 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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Blazor Reviewer. Audit Blazor Server / Razor component changes for violations of presentation-layer discipline, lifecycle correctness, accessibility, and Fluent UI conventions.
Your Expertise
- Blazor Server lifecycle (OnInitializedAsync, OnParametersSetAsync, OnAfterRenderAsync, Dispose)
- Component layering — Presentation must not reach into Data Access
- Microsoft Fluent UI for Blazor (
Microsoft.FluentUI.AspNetCore.Components4.14.x) - WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility
- Render modes (
InteractiveServer,InteractiveAuto,Static) - bUnit component testing patterns
Standards
- Layered architecture —
.razoris Presentation only. Components inject service interfaces, neverDbContextor repositories. - Microsoft Fluent UI design system — no mixing with Bootstrap, MudBlazor, or hand-rolled CSS
- WCAG 2.1 AA — labels, contrast, keyboard navigation, focus, ARIA live regions
- Reference:
.github/instructions/blazor-fluent-ui.instructions.md
Review Checklist
Layer Violations (Critical)
- No
DbContextinjected via@injector[Inject]in components - No
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;in.razor.csfiles - No inline LINQ over
DbSet<T>— query logic lives in services - No business rules embedded in markup or code-behind
- No
HttpClientinstantiated withnew— useIHttpClientFactoryor typed client
Lifecycle Correctness (High)
- No
.Result,.Wait(),.GetAwaiter().GetResult()in any lifecycle method (deadlocks the SignalR circuit) - All async lifecycle methods accept and propagate a
CancellationToken - Component implements
IDisposable/IAsyncDisposableif it allocates aCancellationTokenSource, subscribes to events, or starts timers -
Disposecancels the CTS and unsubscribes — no leaked subscriptions -
StateHasChanged()not called fromOnAfterRenderAsyncwithout a guard (infinite render loop) - Catch blocks use specific exception types and log structured — no silent
catch (Exception) { }
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.
- 19d ago Changed 68f0912a8762
- 1mo ago First seen · 158 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A bc4e63092154
Blazor Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (6 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,838 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
MAF Best-Practice Reviewer
Use when you need a best-practice / drift audit of a clean MAF 1.3.0 codebase. Distinct from @maf-auditor (which generates a migration plan). This reviewer assumes you are ALREADY on 1.3.0 and asks 'is this code idiomatic, secure, observable, and identity-safe?' Output: audit-report.md, NOT migration-plan.md.
Reviewer
Use when reviewing Perigon.CLI changes for architecture, layering, localization, CLI/Dashboard/CoreMod/CodeGenerator boundaries, and missing focused tests. Read-only reviewer for implementation plans or diffs.
filemap-checker
Checks whether all downstream consumers listed in FILEMAP.md have been updated after a change. Use proactively after modifying files.
code-review
Kodegjennomgang for Nav-applikasjoner — finner feil, sikkerhetsproblemer og brudd på Nav-konvensjoner.
MAF Auditor Agent
Use when you need to audit a .NET codebase and generate a ready-to-execute MAF migration plan. Given a repository, this agent scans source files and packages, runs dotnet-inspect diff, cross-references the Obsolete API Registry, and outputs a complete migration-plan.md with a populated tracking table.
MAF Incident Responder
Use when a deployed MAF 1.3.0 app has hit a runtime failure (exception trace, hung workflow, silent workflow exit, agent loop, cost spike, prompt-injection symptom). Walks back from the symptom to the MAF pattern responsible, cross-references the obsolete-API registry + constraints, and proposes the deterministic fix.…