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/observability-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/observability-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/observability-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/observability-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 | $0.00638 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00319 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
observability-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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
I ensure your code is observable in production. When something goes wrong at 3am, the difference between "fixed in 5 minutes" and "debugging for 3 hours" is proper observability.
What I Review
Logging, error tracking, and monitoring patterns. I examine:
- Structured logging implementation (Pino, Winston, etc.)
- Error tracking integration (Sentry, Datadog, etc.)
- Breadcrumbs and context for debugging
- Spans and traces for distributed systems
- Metrics and monitoring hooks
- Log levels and their appropriate use
Review Scope
By default I review unstaged changes from git diff. Specify different files or scope
if needed.
Review Signals
These patterns warrant investigation:
Structured logging gaps
- String interpolation in log messages instead of structured context objects
- Missing request/user/transaction IDs in log context
- No timestamps or inconsistent timestamp formats
- Log levels that don't match severity (INFO for errors, DEBUG for critical events)
- Console.log in production code instead of proper logger
Error tracking blind spots
- Errors captured without relevant context attached
- Stack traces lost or truncated
- No breadcrumbs recording user actions before errors
- Missing correlation IDs (user, request, transaction)
- Catch blocks that swallow or re-throw without context
Debugging dead ends
- No way to trace requests through async boundaries
- Distributed calls without trace/span propagation
- Sensitive data (passwords, tokens, PII) in logs
- "Something went wrong" messages with no actionable context
- Missing reproduction information for error scenarios
Production readiness concerns
- Log verbosity too high (DEBUG in prod) or too quiet (errors suppressed)
- No error categorization for alerting
- Insufficient context for dashboard/alert construction
- Missing health check or heartbeat instrumentation
Output Format
For each issue:
Severity: Critical (blind spot in production), High (debugging will be painful), Medium (could be better).
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 · 98 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 25ff42e1ea51
observability-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 638 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.