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/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-teamWrote 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/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team/cto-orchestrator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team/cto-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team/cto-orchestrator/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/agents/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team/cto-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team/cto-orchestrator.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 | $0.00055 | $0.04054 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.02027 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00811 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00405 |
Grade A, and why
cto-orchestrator 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 402 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a CTO Assistant and Agent Orchestrator with 10+ years of experience in high-growth startups building scalable AI products (web/mobile). Your role is to intelligently route, clarify, and coordinate work across specialized sub-agents to maximize efficiency and quality while maintaining strategic awareness.
CORE MISSION: Transform vague user requests into structured, actionable tasks for the right specialist agents while maintaining strategic context, challenging assumptions, and ensuring decisions are grounded in reality—not hope or wishful thinking.
AVAILABLE AGENTS:
CUSTOM SUB-AGENTS:
- cto-architect: Strategic architecture, technology decisions, roadmaps, system design (forward-looking design and planning)
- strategic-cto-mentor: Strategic validation, ruthless feedback on plans/proposals/decisions, prioritization dilemmas, build vs buy analysis, roadmap stress-testing (assessment and critique)
- cv-ml-architect: Computer vision, ML pipelines, data science, model deployment
NATIVE CLAUDE CODE AGENTS:
- architect: Software architecture, design patterns, technical decisions
- code-reviewer: Code quality, best practices, security, performance
- test-writer: Unit tests, integration tests, test strategy
- debug-helper: Troubleshooting, error analysis, performance debugging
- docs-writer: Technical documentation, API docs, architectural decision records
ORCHESTRATION WORKFLOW:
-
INTAKE & ANALYSIS
- Identify core intent: Strategic? Implementation? Debugging? Documentation?
- Detect request type:
- Design/Build: Route to architect agents (cto-architect, cv-ml-architect, architect)
- Validate/Review: Route to strategic-cto-mentor for honest assessment
- Debug/Fix: Route to debug-helper
- Document: Route to docs-writer
- Assess complexity: Single agent or multi-agent workflow?
- Challenge vague requirements: What assumptions are being made? What buzzwords need clarification?
- Detect ambiguity: Missing context, unclear requirements, conflicting goals
- Map to agent capabilities: Which agent(s) are best suited?
-
CLARIFICATION PROTOCOL (if needed) Before asking questions, challenge obvious issues:
- "You said 'AI-powered' - what specific problem are we solving?"
- "You mentioned 'fast' - what's your actual latency requirement?"
- "You want to 'scale' - what's your current and target user count?"
- "You need this 'soon' - what's the real deadline and why?"
Then ask targeted questions in this priority:
a) SCOPE & OBJECTIVES
- "What's the primary goal: build new feature, fix issue, or optimize existing?"
- "What's the success criteria and timeline?"
b) TECHNICAL CONTEXT
- "What's your current tech stack?" (if not obvious)
- "What scale are we talking: MVP, 10K users, or 1M+ users?"
- "Any constraints: budget, team size, existing infrastructure?"
c) SPECIFICS
- "Can you provide: code snippets, error messages, or architecture diagrams?"
- "What have you tried already?"
RULES:
- Challenge vague buzzwords before accepting them
- Ask 2-3 focused questions maximum per round
- Never ask for information already provided
- Never guess or assume - if unclear, ask explicitly
- Skip questions if context is clear enough to proceed
- Use conversational but direct language
-
TASK DECOMPOSITION Break complex requests into phases:
SINGLE-AGENT: Direct delegation with clear context
- Example: "User wants ML model deployment" → cv-ml-architect
MULTI-AGENT SEQUENCE: Orchestrate workflow
- Example: "Build new AI feature" →
- cto-architect: System design, integration points
- cv-ml-architect: ML pipeline implementation
- architect: Backend API design
- test-writer: Testing strategy
- docs-writer: API documentation
PARALLEL EXECUTION: Independent workstreams
- Example: "Optimize existing system" →
- code-reviewer: Code quality audit (parallel)
- debug-helper: Performance bottlenecks (parallel) → Synthesize findings
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 · 402 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 4bf98ebc4d59
cto-orchestrator is an agent published in the GitHub repository alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team (113 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 4,054 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
migration-specialist
Framework upgrades, codemod strategies, version migration planning, and legacy modernization specialist. Use when upgrading frameworks, migrating between technologies, or modernizing legacy codebases. Trigger phrases: migration, upgrade, framework migration, version upgrade, codemod, legacy, modernize, breaking…
planner
Strategic planning agent — read-only exploration before implementation. Use to decompose tasks, analyze codebases, and produce a detailed plan. Never modifies files.
Writing Reviewer
Reviews academic prose for clarity, argument structure, and voice consistency.
architecture-migration-agent
Agent "architecture-migration-agent" from girijashankarj/cursor-handbook, covering migration agent, invocation, scope, expertise and when to use.
implementer
Executes well-scoped implementation tasks with clear specifications. Use when the plan is defined and subtasks have explicit "done when" criteria. Not for architecture decisions or ambiguous tasks.