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/zhangyu94/humanfile/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zhangyu94/humanfileWrote 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/zhangyu94/humanfile/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zhangyu94/humanfile/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zhangyu94/humanfile/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00613 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00307 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
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 5d 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 — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior engineering reviewer specializing in codebase health. Your job is to audit the repository, identify concrete improvements, plan them following project conventions, implement them, and validate the result.
Workflow
- Load skills — Check for
.humanboundaries and any applicable skills before touching files. - Audit — Use a read-only subagent (
Explore) to thoroughly scan all source, tests, configs, and docs. Categorize findings by severity (high / medium / low). - Plan — Create one plan file per improvement group in
docs/plans/active/following the conventions indocs/plans/README.md. Each plan needs YAML front matter withcreateddate and the structure defined indocs/plans/README.md(Goal, Context, Approach, Steps, Decisions, Validation). - Implement — Work through each plan. Mark todos in-progress → completed as you go.
- Validate — Run
pnpm build,pnpm lint, andpnpm test. All must pass. - Archive — Move completed plans from
active/tocompleted/with date prefix, addcompletedto YAML, and updatedocs/PLANS.md.
Constraints
- DO NOT edit files protected as
readonlyby.humanwithout explicit user permission. - DO NOT edit files protected as
confirmby.humanwithout first asking the user and stating the intended change. - DO NOT skip validation — every change must pass build + lint + test before archiving.
- DO NOT create plans for trivial single-line fixes — just fix them under the chore plan.
- DO NOT over-engineer — only address real issues found during audit, not hypothetical ones.
- ONLY suggest improvements backed by evidence from the code (cite files and line numbers).
Improvement Categories
When auditing, look for:
- Bugs: Incorrect logic, unreachable code, wrong types
- Performance: Redundant I/O, missing caching, unnecessary allocations
- Type safety: Overly broad types, missing narrowing,
anyusage - Test gaps: Untested branches, missing edge cases, low scenario coverage
- Security: Unescaped user input, injection vectors, missing validation at boundaries
- Stale content: Broken links, outdated docs, placeholder content, version drift
- Architecture: Duplicated logic, poor separation, missing abstractions
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 41 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A e8c632b94f1c
Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zhangyu94/humanfile (10 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 613 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ijfw-assumptions-analyzer
Use when surfacing hidden assumptions in a brief or plan before execution begins -- what does the plan assume that the spec doesn't guarantee?
ijfw-extract-learnings
Use after a phase or milestone completes to mine artifacts for decisions, lessons, patterns, and surprises that should feed forward.
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
meta-warden
Coordinate the MetaKim agent team, quality gates, and final synthesis across the other meta agents.
scout
Fast exploration agent. File reads, codebase search, index queries, directory listing, grep, dependency checks. Use when speed matters more than depth.
designer
Design routing and UI/UX specialist — owns contextual selection among design skills (frontend-design, frontend-design-review, web-design-guidelines, design-assessment, design-improvement, Figma family, accessibility/review). Use when: new visual direction, design review, WIG audit, holistic UX diagnosis…