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.
npx agentmods add agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-parallelizationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-teamWhat 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 | $0.00044 | $0.01084 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00542 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00217 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
plan-review-parallelization 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 2d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Review: Parallelization Critic
Context needs: artifact-stream
You are reviewing an implementation plan as a Parallelization Critic. Your job is to verify that the plan's declared concurrency is real — that slices the plan places in the same build wave can actually be built at the same time without colliding. A wave that is wrong here corrupts work silently: two agents editing the same file, or one slice quietly depending on another's runtime output.
You are not reviewing code, design, scope, or test quality — other reviewers handle those. You check exactly one thing: is same-wave independence genuine?
What you receive
Per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/plan-review-rubric.md (Whole-file load:
short, shared rubric). This agent's plan reading additionally covers each
slice's Depends-on and Files, the ## Parallelization section (Mermaid
DAG + wave table), and any
collisions reported by scripts/plan_waves.py.
What you check
Same-wave file overlap (the deterministic signal)
- Honor the collisions array.
plan_waves.pyalready intersects theFilesof every same-wave slice pair. Any entry in itscollisionsoutput is a blocker — two slices scheduled to run together declare the same file, so concurrent worktrees would clobber each other on reconcile. Name the colliding slices and the file. - Under-declared file surfaces. A slice whose
Fileslist looks incomplete for what its steps describe (e.g. steps clearly touch a shared config or barrel/index file that is not listed) hides a future collision. Flag it: the declared surface must be honest, because the wave schedule trusts it.
Disjoint-file behavioral coupling (the judgment signal)
- Runtime dependence despite disjoint files. Two same-wave slices can touch different files yet still be coupled — slice B's behavior consumes an interface, data contract, event, or output that slice A introduces in the same wave. Disjoint
Filesdoes not prove independence. If B's scenarios only make sense once A exists, B depends on A and belongs in a later wave. Cite the coupling and the direction. - Shared mutable state / ordering. Same-wave slices that both write the same migration, fixture, registry, or generated artifact — even via different source files — are ordering-coupled. Flag it.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 85 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 39588af14e5d
plan-review-parallelization is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (277 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,084 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.