Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plugin install dev-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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/claude-setup-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/claude-setup-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/claude-setup-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/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/claude-setup-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/claude-setup-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 | $0.00025 | $0.01719 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00688 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00344 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00172 |
Grade A, and why
claude-setup-review 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 1mo 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 — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claude Setup Review
Scope: on-demand Cites:
- adversarial-review-protocol
- directory-enumeration Enforcement: script
Dispatched by the user-invocable /claude-setup-review command and by the
whole-tree /repo-review command (#1735), never by /code-review's
automatic panel. This agent reviews the harness (CLAUDE.md, rules,
skills, agent frontmatter), not the changeset, so it has nothing to say
about a diff: under the old Scope: always it joined an 18-lens panel for a
two-file JS change in a project with no Claude config at all.
select_lenses.py's resolver reads this Scope: on-demand declaration
directly and never selects it for the per-diff roster — the agent body is
the single source of truth for this exclusion, same as any other Scope:
kind.
Implemented by:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/claude_setup_review.py— a deterministic validator, so prefer running it over re-deriving its checks by reading files. It was previously named as a barescripts/…path while living only at this repository's root, so for anyone who installed the plugin the reference resolved nowhere and the agent silently degraded to a pure-LLM pass.
Output JSON: per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/review-agent-output-contract.md (Whole-file load: short, canonical schema).
Status: pass=complete config, warn=gaps, fail=critical missing Severity: error=blocks AI effectiveness or violates required schema; warning=reduces quality or uses unsupported field; suggestion=enhancement or style improvement Confidence: high=mechanical fix (add missing field, fix invalid value); medium=content exists but needs restructuring; none=requires human judgment
Context needs: project-structure
Skip
Return {"status": "skip", "issues": [], "summary": "Not a Claude Code project"} when:
- No CLAUDE.md,
.claude/directory, agent files, or.clinerulesfile exists - Target is clearly not a Claude Code-enabled project
Check existence with Glob only — e.g. Glob("CLAUDE.md"), Glob(".claude/**"), Glob("**/agents/*.md"), Glob(".clinerules"). Never Read a directory path (the repo root, .claude/, agents/) to see what it contains — Read on a directory fails with EISDIR. Read only specific files Glob has confirmed exist. See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/directory-enumeration.md for the shared rule (Whole-file load: a short single-rule reference).
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 137 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 4247e4cc86c4
claude-setup-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 1,719 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.