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/celigo/aiWrote 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/commands/celigo/ai/celigo-review-config)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/celigo/ai/celigo-review-config"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/celigo/ai/celigo-review-config/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/commands/celigo/ai/celigo-review-config"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/celigo/ai/celigo-review-config.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00266 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00133 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00053 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
celigo-review-config 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 10d 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.
What it actually says
Review the Celigo resource configuration I provide (paste the JSON, or point me at a file) and flag issues. No live account is required -- reason from the config itself.
Use the skill that matches the resource type: building-flows, configuring-exports, configuring-imports, configuring-connections, writing-mappings, or troubleshooting-flows.
Check for:
- Correctness --
adaptorTypecasing, required fields, valid_connectionId/_exportId/_importIdreferences, 6-field cron schedule. - Sandbox/production consistency (
sandboxflags must not mix). - Error handling --
proceedOnFailure, retry/notification settings. - Mappings --
record.prefix (AFE 2.0), triple vs double braces, unguarded first-match lookups. - Common pitfalls for that resource type (see the skill's Gotchas section).
Produce a prioritized list of findings (blocker / warning / nit) with the concrete fix for each. Do not modify anything unless I ask.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 18 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 40f2fcf766a9
celigo-review-config is a command published in the GitHub repository celigo/ai (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 266 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 commands, from other repositories
review
Review code changes against project conventions.
gh-triage
GitHub OSS maintainer lifecycle triage, review, and approval management.
review
Review a skill for quality before merge.
review
Review the current diff against project memory.
code-review
Code review a pull request.
tldr-review
One-line TLDR PR review comments (verdict first, no filler).