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/Connectry-io/connectrylab-architect-cert-mcpWrote 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/connectry-io/connectrylab-architect-cert-mcp/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/connectry-io/connectrylab-architect-cert-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/connectry-io/connectrylab-architect-cert-mcp/review/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/connectry-io/connectrylab-architect-cert-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/connectry-io/connectrylab-architect-cert-mcp/review.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00408 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00204 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00041 |
Grade B, and why
review 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 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.
Unrestricted tool accessmediumExcessive agency
A wildcard tool grant or "run any command" leaves no least-privilege boundary at all.
# never write files or execute arbitrary commands. What it actually says
Code Review
Review the changes in this PR or working tree for quality, correctness, and adherence to project standards.
Scope
$ARGUMENTS
If no arguments are provided, review all uncommitted changes (git diff and git diff --staged).
Review Checklist
For each changed file, evaluate:
- Correctness — Does the logic do what it claims? Edge cases handled?
- Type safety — No
anytypes, proper null checks, discriminated unions used? - Error handling — Are all error paths covered? Result types in domain layer?
- Naming — Do names follow project conventions (see .claude/rules/coding-style.md)?
- Testing — Are there corresponding test changes? Coverage maintained?
- Security — No hardcoded secrets, input validated, SQL parameterized?
- Performance — No N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations, or blocking I/O?
Output Format
For each issue found, report:
[SEVERITY] file:line — description
Suggestion: how to fix
Severity levels: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, NIT
Summarize with counts per severity at the end.
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 · 54 lines · 0 tokens per session scan B dee29d37db4a
review is a command published in the GitHub repository Connectry-io/connectrylab-architect-cert-mcp (33 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 408 tokens. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (unrestricted tool access). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Review the file at $ARGUMENTS for code quality issues.
review-issue
Review and respond to a GitHub issue.
review-pr
Review an open pull request and optionally post the review to GitHub.
review-pr-ci
Review a pull request and post the review to GitHub (CI/automated use).
link-review
Review links in changed files for quality and security issues.
model-check
Validate Claude model usage against current public models.