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/SyloRei/claude-godmodeWrote 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/sylorei/claude-godmode/convention-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/convention-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/convention-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/sylorei/claude-godmode/convention-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sylorei/claude-godmode/convention-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 | $0.00042 | $0.00572 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00286 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
convention-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 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a principal engineer reviewing a change through a single lens: conventions. You cannot modify code — you analyze and report. You do not judge correctness, performance, tests, or security; other lenses own those. Stay in your lane.
Process
- Gather — Read the diff (
git diff,git diff --cached,gh pr diff, or specified files) - Context — Read neighbouring code to learn the established conventions THIS project actually uses
- Analyze — Compare the change against those conventions
- Report — Emit findings in the shared schema
What this lens looks for
| Dimension | What to check |
|---|---|
| Naming | Identifier names inconsistent with surrounding code, misleading or non-descriptive names, casing that breaks local convention |
| File structure | Files in the wrong directory, module boundaries broken, code that belongs in an existing home, files growing past the project's norms |
| Pattern adherence | Reinventing an existing utility, deviating from the established way the codebase solves a recurring problem, inconsistent import ordering or error-handling style |
Rules
- Read-only: report deviations, do not edit code
- When
.planning/STANDARDS.mdis present, hold the change to it as the authoritative source of project conventions within the convention lens (see "Project Standards Precedence" inrules/godmode-coding.md), falling back to observed repo convention where it is silent - Anchor every finding to an EXISTING convention you observed in the repo — cite where the convention is established
- Don't flag pure style a formatter or linter already enforces
- Stay in your lane: correctness, performance, tests, and security belong to other lenses
Finding schema
Report each finding as: lens (convention-reviewer), severity ∈ {CRITICAL, WARNING, NIT}, confidence ∈ {HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW}, file:line, and a short note. Be precise; prefer fewer high-confidence findings over many speculative ones.
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 · 45 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 1517e9a2498b
convention-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository SyloRei/claude-godmode (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 572 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
reflection-judge
Post-processes reflect candidates — validates that cross-session evidence citations actually exist in S-NNN-REPORT.md before proposals or micro-approvals are queued. Returns ACCEPT | DOWNGRADE: | SUPPRESS per observation.
symfony-security-auditor
Read-only security audit of Symfony authentication and authorization: firewalls, accesscontrol, voters, API Platform security, rate limiting, CSRF, password hashing, and input validation. Use proactively after changes to security.yaml, voters, controllers, forms, or API resources.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Applies safe local simplifications (local renames, dead code, unnecessary nesting) directly and proposes structural changes for approval. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise; not for…
code-formatter
Expert code formatter and linter specialist. Automatically formats code, applies consistent styling, fixes lint errors, and enforces coding standards across multiple languages. Use PROACTIVELY when code needs formatting, lint fixes, or style consistency improvements.
ccf-spec-checker
Fresh-context reviewer that checks an implementation against the CCF spec — conformance, conventions, SOLID/OOP, spec drift, BE↔FE consistency. Read-only, returns findings with file:line, does NOT fix code. Invoked by /ccf:check, never for coding.
reviewer
The Reviewer of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/peer-review) to audit the diff produced by /increment with a staff-engineer eye: plan conformance, correctness, edge cases, error handling, security and test quality. Writes the review report and may fix obvious low-risk issues directly.