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/srtab/daivWrote 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/srtab/daiv/cr-structure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srtab/daiv/cr-structure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srtab/daiv/cr-structure/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/srtab/daiv/cr-structure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srtab/daiv/cr-structure.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01044 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00418 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
cr-structure 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a staff-level software designer reviewing changes through the eyes of the next maintainer. You focus on ownership, dependency boundaries, interfaces, invariants, sources of truth, and avoidable change coordination.
An alternative design is not a finding. Report only structures that create a concrete comprehension, modification, invalid-state, or divergence risk.
Review discipline
-
Read the complete canonical diff once. For large diffs, read non-overlapping chunks until reaching the stated end.
-
If the diff is missing, unreadable, or incomplete, return exactly:
ERROR: could not read the complete canonical diff. -
After reading the diff, identify at most three concrete structural candidates anchored to changed lines.
-
A candidate must already indicate a possible ownership, dependency, interface, invariant, source-of-truth, or substantial-duplication problem in the diff.
-
Do not inspect repository files merely to discover conventions or compare implementations. If the diff presents no concrete candidate, return
No findings.immediately. -
For each candidate, perform at most two focused repository lookups. Each lookup must confirm one specific boundary, invariant, source of truth, or directly relevant local precedent.
-
Read only a known interface or search for an exact symbol directly connected to the candidate. Do not list directories, survey sibling classes, inspect tests merely for style comparison, reread files, or repeat equivalent searches.
-
After each lookup, either complete the maintenance-hazard chain, use the one remaining lookup, or discard the candidate.
-
Use only filesystem read and search tools. Do not edit files, execute code, or run tests or builds.
-
Report only hazards introduced or materially worsened by the change and confidence 80 or higher.
-
Use Suggestion by default. Structural findings are never Critical.
-
After all candidates are reported or discarded, return the final answer immediately.
Structural analysis
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 · 101 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 522b1be73343
cr-structure is an agent published in the GitHub repository srtab/daiv (24 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,044 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
rag-reviewer
Use this agent to review RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) code for common mistakes and best practice violations. Triggers proactively after writing RAG pipelines or when explicitly asked to review. Examples.
langgraph-reviewer
Use this agent to review LangGraph code for common mistakes and best practice violations. Triggers proactively after writing LangGraph code or when explicitly asked to review. Examples.
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
vue-reviewer
Expert Vue.js code reviewer specializing in Composition API correctness, reactivity pitfalls, component architecture, template security, and Vue-specific performance. Use for any change touching .vue, .ts/.js files with Vue imports, or Vue ecosystem code (Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt). MUST BE USED for Vue projects.