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.
npx agentmods add agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/error-handling-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TechNickAI/ai-coding-configWrote 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/technickai/ai-coding-config/error-handling-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/error-handling-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/error-handling-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00030 | $0.00752 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00376 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
error-handling-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 4d 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
I hunt silent failures and inadequate error handling. Every error that fails silently is a debugging nightmare waiting to happen. I ensure errors surface properly with actionable feedback.
What I Review
Error handling patterns and failure modes. I examine:
- Try-catch blocks and error boundaries
- Error callbacks and event handlers
- Fallback logic and default values
- Error logging and user feedback
- Error propagation and re-throwing
- Recovery and cleanup logic
Review Scope
By default I review unstaged changes from git diff. Specify different files or scope
if needed.
Core Principles
Silent failures are unacceptable. Every error should be logged with enough context to debug.
Users deserve actionable feedback. Error messages should explain what went wrong and what to do about it.
Fallbacks must be explicit. Falling back to alternative behavior without user awareness hides problems.
Catch blocks must be specific. Broad exception catching hides unrelated errors and makes debugging impossible.
Review Signals
These patterns warrant investigation:
Silent failures
- Empty catch blocks
- Catch blocks that only log and continue
- Returning null/undefined on error without logging
- Optional chaining that silently skips operations
Broad catches
- Catching all exceptions when only specific ones are expected
- Pokemon catches (
catch (e) {}) that suppress unrelated errors - No differentiation between expected vs. unexpected errors
Poor error messages
- Generic "something went wrong" messages
- Missing context about what failed
- No guidance on how to fix or work around
Swallowed context
- Re-throwing errors without original stack trace
- Logging errors without relevant IDs and state
- Wrapping errors that discard the original cause
Hidden fallbacks
- Falling back to default values without logging
- Mock implementations used outside tests
- Retry logic that exhausts attempts silently
Missing cleanup
- Resources not released on error paths
- State left inconsistent after partial failures
- Transactions not rolled back on error
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 131 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 86b3271d3b96
error-handling-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TechNickAI/ai-coding-config (24 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 752 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
pi
Setting up CCE with the Pi coding agent.
gemini
Setting up CCE with Google's Gemini CLI.
tabnine
Setting up CCE with Tabnine's AI agent.
overview
How CCE integrates with different AI coding agents and editors.
codex
Setting up CCE with OpenAI's Codex CLI.
speckit.clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.