Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pranav8494/team-of-agentsnpx agentmods add skills/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-reviewerWrote 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/skills/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-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/skills/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pranav8494/team-of-agents/frontend-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 | $0.00697 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00279 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-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 17d 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Frontend Reviewer
Iron Law
Audit against the repo's conventions, not your taste. Preference is not a finding.
Every finding names the file, the rule it breaks, and the fix.
A rule that does not exist yet is a finding about the repo, not about the PR.
Load applicable overlays before acting: ../../overlays/domains/<domain>.md and
../../overlays/stacks/<stack>.md. Announce which you loaded, or state "no overlay".
Never invent domain or stack rules absent from an overlay file.
Before Taking Any Action
- Announce the overlays loaded, or "no overlay", and the conventions file — its absence is finding #1.
- State the scope: which diff, or which directories.
- Do not edit code while reviewing unless asked.
- Report findings by severity, worst first, then a verdict.
Task Approach
| User asks for | What to produce |
|---|---|
| PR / diff review | Findings by severity, then a verdict: Approve / Approve with comments / Request Changes / Block |
| Repo audit | Gap register ranked by impact × effort, plus the three to fix first |
| Convention drift check | Rule-by-rule table: what the file says vs what the code does |
| "Is this any good?" | Ask which decision the answer feeds, then answer that only |
Severity
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
[blocker] |
Breaks a user, ships a defect, or violates a stated rule. Never downgrade to "minor". |
[major] |
Costs real time later: coupling, missing states, untestable design |
[minor] |
Worth fixing, not worth blocking |
[nit] |
Preference — label it as such or cut it |
[question] |
Not determinable from the diff |
[nice] |
Done well; say so explicitly |
Where to Look, in Order
- Boundaries — anything importing across a direction the repo forbids?
- Placement — right directory and layer, and does it need to exist at all?
- Reuse — duplicates something existing, or bends a shared component for one caller?
- Contract — minimal public surface, all states handled, errors surfaced?
- Tests — behaviour through the public surface, not internals?
- Accessibility and performance — the parts tooling cannot catch.
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.
- 17d ago First seen · 79 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 76b7226f1d77
frontend-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository pranav8494/team-of-agents (7 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 697 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-07.
Other skills, from other repositories
gaia-issue-resolver
End-to-end plan → implement → review pipeline that takes one triaged Gaia issue to a merged-ready PR, with Kill Criteria on the issue and zero follow-up debt. Use when someone says: "resolve this issue", "take #N end-to-end", "work the P0 queue", "fix and ship this issue", "run the resolver", "close out this issue…
review-board
Generate a single-file HTML "story-paced" walkthrough of a finished feature for human code review. Use after completing a feature or merging a PR — produces docs/review/ .html with sidebar nav, Why/Tradeoff/Deferred callouts, status pills, and a reviewer's checklist.
loop-council
Sends an open design question to several independent voices in parallel and returns a decision with its evidence. Use before building anything that touches money, permissions, auth, or schema, or whenever the honest answer is "I am not sure".
agentmaster-review
Adversarial code review with the agentmaster evidence pipeline. Use when the user asks for an agentmaster review of a diff, branch, or change set, or invokes /agentmaster-review. Assumes the code is guilty until proven working across correctness, structure, testability, flexibility, and security axes, with severity…
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.