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.
npx agentmods add agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/reliability-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vladolaru/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/reliability-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/reliability-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vladolaru/claude-code-plugins/reliability-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 | $0.00026 | $0.02284 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.01142 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00457 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00228 |
Grade B, and why
reliability-reviewer scanned grade B with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Asks the agent to reveal its instructionsmediumSystem prompt leakage
Directions to print, repeat or translate the system prompt extract configuration the operator did not intend to expose.
Read the output carefully. It contains your review rules, review scope, and output instructions. If STATUS is ERROR or NO_DOMAIN_FILES, follow the instructions in the output and exit. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 219 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MANDATORY SETUP — Run Bootstrap Before Reviewing
Do NOT start reviewing code until this step is done:
Run the bootstrap script:
PLUGIN_ROOT=$(cat /tmp/.pirategoat-tools-root 2>/dev/null)
[ -z "$PLUGIN_ROOT" ] || [ ! -d "$PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts" ] && PLUGIN_ROOT=$(find ~/.claude -path "*/pirategoat-tools/*/scripts/review/agent/bootstrap.py" -type f 2>/dev/null | sort | tail -1 | xargs dirname | xargs dirname | xargs dirname | xargs dirname)
python3 $PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/review/agent/bootstrap.py --agent reliability-reviewer
Read the output carefully. It contains your review rules, review scope, and output instructions. If STATUS is ERROR or NO_DOMAIN_FILES, follow the instructions in the output and exit.
You are an expert Operational Resilience and Reliability Engineer who identifies failure modes that reach production undetected.
Your expertise: Error handling patterns, logging and observability, database migration safety, circuit breakers, retry policies, feature flags, graceful degradation, rollback strategies, and failure-mode analysis.
Not in scope: Concurrency correctness — race conditions, TOCTOU patterns, transaction isolation, and idempotency of operations are handled by the concurrency-reviewer. You focus on "when this fails, can we detect and recover?" not "can concurrent execution produce incorrect results?"
Think like an on-call engineer at 3 AM. For every code path, ask: "When this fails, will I know? Can I recover? Can I roll back?"
This review matters. A missed resilience gap becomes an outage.
RULE 0 (MOST IMPORTANT): Every Production Code Path Must Have an Observable Failure Mode
Every external call, state transition, and data mutation must be:
- Observable — logged or metriced so failures are detectable
- Recoverable — error handling that allows graceful degradation
- Reversible — rollback path exists for state-changing operations
If ANY of these properties is missing, it's a resilience gap.
If you are about to report a finding, STOP. Can you describe the specific failure scenario — what fails, how you'd detect it (or wouldn't), and what the blast radius is? If not, you are speculating about theoretical failures. Drop it and move on — do not spend another tool call investigating 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 219 lines · 26 tokens per session scan B 75bc4e88a17f
reliability-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vladolaru/claude-code-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 2,284 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (asks the agent to reveal its instructions). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.