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/V-Songbird/foundryWrote 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/v-songbird/foundry/doc-consistency-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/v-songbird/foundry/doc-consistency-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/v-songbird/foundry/doc-consistency-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/v-songbird/foundry/doc-consistency-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/v-songbird/foundry/doc-consistency-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 | $0.00034 | $0.00526 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00263 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
doc-consistency-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 today.
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
Documentation consistency review
Read-only: report findings without rewriting files or changing project state. Review plugin README, CHANGELOG and community files against Foundry's current templates. Use the user's current requirements over obsolete historical notes.
For a Foreman, Hush or Razor main selector, check only the introduction, correct edition links, README/license/two-logo file set and navigation. Use the check-main-frontpage.js result. Do not demand the full platform README or its benchmark blocks there. Flint is explicitly outside this main-cleanup policy.
For a README, inspect both platform editions and their checker results. Their common product narrative, headings, order, outcomes and branding must agree. Only identity, installation, commands, actual compatibility/availability, benchmarks and edition-specific links may differ. Each exception needs a real platform reason. Main headings cannot be hidden inside an exception.
Benchmarks ask the same questions with the same metric columns. Model/setup rows, numerical results, empirical artwork and examples follow each host's own evidence. Verify models, source dates, denominators, units, scope and losses against the cited report. Identify source dates separately from review dates. Flag swapped model labels, missing provenance, invented pending values and performance claims derived only from functional tests. Missing measurements and unavailable packages must remain explicit. Do not claim runtime parity from README equality.
Use clear, warm, concrete product prose. Keep research narratives and extensive methodology in Foundry's documentation, and product guides with the plugin. Fair, sourced comparisons may name their subjects in a README. No profanity or jokes at a real project's or person's expense. Preserve existing user-facing limitations until evidence resolves them.
CHANGELOG entries state user-visible changes briefly. Keep CONTRIBUTING, SECURITY and CODE_OF_CONDUCT aligned with the corresponding templates while retaining necessary plugin-specific sections. Flag broken navigation and links.
Return a GOOD/FLAG report per reviewed file with concrete findings and evidence. Mark unavailable counterparts or missing sources as UNVERIFIED rather than passing them. Identify which Claude/Codex pair was reviewed. If tools cannot run the checker, read supplied output or ask the parent to run it; do not invent a successful check. Do not launch other agents or modify files.
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.
- today First seen · 50 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A ad4458755ed9
doc-consistency-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository V-Songbird/foundry (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 526 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 2026-09-10.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Use this agent to review changed files for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and code quality. Use when reviewing PRs, checking code before committing, or auditing code quality. Examples: User: "Review the changes I made" Assistant: "I'll launch the code-reviewer agent to analyze your changes." User: "Is…
guardrail-checker
Use this agent to verify that code changes follow development guardrails -- git safety, security practices, PR workflow, and coding standards. Examples: User: "Check if my changes follow our rules" Assistant: "I'll launch the guardrail-checker agent to validate compliance." User: "Audit this PR for best practice…
pr-analyzer
Use this agent to analyze GitHub PRs -- check CI status, read review comments, assess merge readiness, and suggest next actions. Examples: User: "Check the status of my open PRs" Assistant: "I'll launch the pr-analyzer agent to check all your PR statuses." User: "Why is CI failing on my PR?" Assistant: "Let me launch…
the-rfc-reviewer
Use to review engineering RFCs, design docs, technical proposals, or architecture write-ups the way a senior staff engineer would. Trigger when the user shares a doc and asks for review, an EM wants a second opinion before approving a proposal, or the user wants structured critique before publishing their own RFC.
the-explainer
Use to write explanations of how an AI feature works — sales enablement, customer docs, exec briefings, support runbooks, FAQ, security/legal review materials. Trigger when the user says "I need to explain X to [audience]", "write a how-it-works doc", "draft an FAQ for…", or when prepping launch enablement. Calibrates…
the-prompt-critic
Use to review production prompts, system prompts, or agent instructions the way a senior engineer reviews code. Trigger when the user shares a prompt and asks "is this good?", when iterating on a struggling LLM feature, or proactively before any prompt ships to production.