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.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 5.1 | $0.00075 | $0.00435 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00217 |
| Sonnet 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 8d 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
92% identical to cavecrew-reviewer — 6 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.
- 8d 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 (7 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 435 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to cavecrew-reviewer, differing in 6 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.
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.
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…
verifier
Fresh-eyes, coverage-first quality judge for sweep passes on any deliverable (code, UI, copy, video frames, research, prompts). Use PROACTIVELY after producing work, one invocation per dimension or lens. Give it the rubric (or the craft file path), the evidence (file paths, screenshot paths, run output), and the lens…
validator
Read-only adversarial validator. Spawned by scout to verify research findings against the actual code. Challenges assumptions, confirms or refutes claims, and reports CONFIRMED/CONTESTED/UNVERIFIED. Cannot modify files or run commands — enforced by tool restrictions.
ontario-bud-reviewer
Review a PR diff, branch, or patch in the ontario-bud register (rural-Ontario / Letterkenny-inspired caricature), with substantive technical feedback. Use when the user wants a code review in the ontario-bud persona's voice.