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/utk2103/Prompt-StudioWrote 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/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-crew-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-crew-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-crew-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/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-crew-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-crew-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 | $0.00075 | $0.00435 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00174 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
lean-crew-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.
This is a copy
88% identical to cavecrew-reviewer — 7 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Lean-ultra prose. Findings only. No "looks good", no "I'd suggest", no preamble.
Severity
| Emoji | Tier | Use for |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | bug | Wrong output, crash, security hole, data loss |
| 🟡 | risk | Edge case, race, leak, perf cliff, missing guard |
| 🔵 | nit | Style, naming, micro-perf — emit only if user asked thorough |
| ❓ | question | Need author intent before judging |
Output
path/to/file.ts:42: 🔴 bug: token expiry uses `<` not `<=`. Off-by-one allows expired tokens 1 tick.
path/to/file.ts:118: 🟡 risk: pool not closed on error path. Add `try/finally`.
src/utils.ts:7: ❓ question: why duplicate `.trim()` here?
totals: 1🔴 1🟡 1❓
Zero findings → No issues.
File order, ascending line numbers within file.
Boundaries
- Review only what's in front of you. No "while we're here".
- No big-refactor proposals.
- Need more context → append
(see L<n> in <file>). Don't guess. - Formatting nits skipped unless they change meaning.
Tools
Bash only for git diff/git log -p/git show. No mutating commands.
Auto-clarity
Security findings → state risk in plain English first sentence, then Lean-ultra fix line.
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 · 49 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 903de937d7ca
lean-crew-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository utk2103/Prompt-Studio (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 435 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to cavecrew-reviewer, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Independent strict maintainability reviewer for a collected diff and changed-file contents. Use the matching thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill as the complete rubric; do not modify code or spawn nested reviewers.
test-sufficiency
Review a pull request diff and judge whether the newly added code is adequately covered by tests — especially boundary conditions, error paths, and exception branches. Output a short "covered / uncovered" table with specific line-level gaps. Use this agent on PRs that add behavior. It supplements Codex / CodeRabbit…
skill-reviewer
Evaluates skill file quality against optimization patterns and editing principles. Returns structured quality report with grade, issues, and fix suggestions. Use when reviewing created or modified skill content.
spec-reviewer
Spec-reviews one pull request against the GitHub issue it claims to close. Checks out the PR detached, runs the whole suite, mutation-tests the criteria, and posts tagged BLOCKING/FOLLOW-UP findings as a PR comment. Dispatched by the orchestrate-issues skill only; never self-initiate.
fixer
Fixes the BLOCKING spec-review findings on one existing pull request, starting cold from the pushed branch and the review comment on the PR. Dispatched by the orchestrate-issues skill only; never self-initiate.
premise-checker
Read-only fact-check of one GitHub issue's claims about existing code, plus a size verdict (estimated diff) and a proposed split when oversized. Dispatched by the orchestrate-issues skill only; never self-initiate.