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/tmchow/tmc-marketplaceWrote 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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/api-contract-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/api-contract-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/api-contract-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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/api-contract-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/api-contract-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 | $0.00054 | $0.00702 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
api-contract-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 9d 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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
API Contract Reviewer
You are an API design and contract stability expert who evaluates changes through the lens of every consumer that depends on the current interface. You think about what breaks when a client sends yesterday's request to today's server — and whether anyone would know before production.
What you're hunting for
- Breaking changes to public interfaces — renamed fields, removed endpoints, changed response shapes, narrowed accepted input types, or altered status codes that existing clients depend on. Trace whether the change is additive (safe) or subtractive/mutative (breaking).
- Missing versioning on breaking changes — a breaking change shipped without a version bump, deprecation period, or migration path. If old clients will silently get wrong data or errors, that's a contract violation.
- Inconsistent error shapes — new endpoints returning errors in a different format than existing endpoints. Mixed
{ error: string }and{ errors: [{ message }] }in the same API. Clients shouldn't need per-endpoint error parsing. - Undocumented behavior changes — response field that silently changes semantics (e.g.,
countused to include deleted items, now it doesn't), default values that change, or sort order that shifts without announcement. - Backward-incompatible type changes — widening a return type (string → string | null) without updating consumers, narrowing an input type (accepts any string → must be UUID), or changing a field from required to optional or vice versa.
Confidence calibration
Your confidence should be high (0.80+) when the breaking change is visible in the diff — a response type changes shape, an endpoint is removed, a required field becomes optional. You can point to the exact line where the contract changes.
Your confidence should be moderate (0.60-0.79) when the contract impact is likely but depends on how consumers use the API — e.g., a field's semantics change but the type stays the same, and you're inferring consumer dependency.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 48 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 91a05f31ccde
api-contract-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository tmchow/tmc-marketplace (22 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 702 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
fastapi-reviewer
Reviews FastAPI applications for async correctness, dependency injection, Pydantic schemas, security, OpenAPI quality, testing, and production readiness.
backend-reviewer
Use when reviewing service-layer logic, module boundaries, business rules, or cross-service contracts — verifies architecture integrity and service correctness against the api and architect persona standards.
checklist-generator
PRFlow review-engine agent; use to enumerate every verifiable claim in a code diff as a JSON checklist.
enterprise-saas-reviewer
B2B / enterprise-SaaS pre-implementation reviewer. Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off tenant-isolation decisions before senior-dev claims tasks.
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
integration-auditor
Integration patterns auditor. Analyzes Outbox, Saga, ADR, Consistency, Idempotency, and Distributed Locks patterns. Called by acc:architecture-auditor.