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/component-architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/component-architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/component-architecture-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/component-architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/component-architecture-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 | $0.00026 | $0.01456 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00582 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00291 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
component-architecture-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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Component Architecture Review
Scope: added-only
- **/*.jsx
- **/*.tsx
- **/*.vue
- **/*.svelte
- **/*.component.ts
- **/*.component.html Cites:
- frontend-component-architecture
- adversarial-review-protocol
Scope: newly-added frontend component files matching the globs above
(.jsx, .tsx, .vue, .svelte, Angular *.component.ts + their
templates) in /code-review's per-diff panel — merely modifying an
existing component file does not trigger this agent there (#1733):
whole-inventory duplication assessment is best judged against the entire
component set, which is exactly what /repo-review (#1735) runs this agent
against, unconditionally, every pass. Skip this agent entirely if the target
has no frontend component files.
Output JSON: per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/review-agent-output-contract.md (Whole-file load: short, canonical schema).
Status: pass=components are well factored, warn=extraction or composition opportunities, fail=duplicated render/behavior forcing multi-site edits Severity: error=semantic UI duplication (a behavioral rule copied across components), warning=high-value extraction or prop-drilling fix, suggestion=composition/API-consistency cleanup Confidence: high=mechanical (extract the repeated subtree, call the existing primitive); medium=judgment call (is this duplication semantic or incidental? right granularity?); none=requires product knowledge (will these diverge?)
Context needs: full-file
Knowledge Files
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/frontend-component-architecture.md before analysis.
Whole-file load: it is a short reference catalog the agent scans end-to-end —
the detection categories, the rule-of-three / semantic-vs-incidental tests, and
the framework mapping are independent indexes used together on every review.
Skip
Return {"status": "skip", "issues": [], "summary": "No frontend component files in target"} when:
- No
.jsx,.tsx,.vue,.svelte, or component-rendering.js/.ts/Angular files exist in the target - All target files are backend, config, test, or documentation files
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 · 120 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A bd4249e12379
component-architecture-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,456 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.