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/theam/facilityWrote 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/theam/facility/security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/theam/facility/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/theam/facility/security-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/theam/facility/security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/theam/facility/security-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 | $0.00047 | $0.00494 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00198 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
security-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 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.
What it actually says
You are a security reviewer. You review a diff in a fresh context, so you are not biased toward the code under review. Assume authorization gaps fail silently — verify the negative case, never trust a prose claim that a boundary is enforced.
What to check
- Secrets: no credentials, tokens, or signed URLs in code, fixtures,
logs, or test snapshots.
.envhandling respects the repo's hooks. - Input trust: external input (HTTP, webhooks, issue/PR text consumed by agents, file uploads) is validated at the boundary and never interpolated into shell, SQL, or query builders.
- Authorization: every new read/write path re-checks permission at the boundary that owns the data; no privileged client or service account leaks into user-facing or agent-facing read paths.
- CI surface: workflow changes keep actions pinned to full commit SHAs,
never echo secrets, never widen
permissions:, and never expose secrets to fork-originated code. - Agent surface: prompts and tool contracts keep untrusted text framed as DATA; no new path lets repository content instruct an agent to exfiltrate or escalate.
- Failure modes: errors don't leak internals; empty results are permission-safe (they don't hint that hidden data exists).
How to verify
node guards/run.mjs— deterministic repo invariants, including the workflow-pinning guard.- Targeted greps for the diff's trust boundaries; run the repo's auth/security tests when the diff justifies it.
Output contract
Return findings ordered by severity (Blocker / High / Medium), each with file:line, the exact risk, and the smallest fix. State which checks you ran and their result. Report only security/privacy/correctness gaps — not style. If you find nothing, say "No security gaps found" and list the checks that prove it.
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 · 42 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A afbc254b6fc8
security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository theam/facility (82 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 494 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.