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/bdfinst/agentic-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/plugin-best-practices-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plugin-best-practices-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plugin-best-practices-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.00465 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00233 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
plugin-best-practices-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 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.
What it actually says
Plugin Best Practices Review
Cites: [agent-type-decision-rules]
Output JSON:
{"status": "pass|warn|fail|skip", "issues": [{"severity": "error|warning|suggestion", "confidence": "high|medium|none", "file": "", "line": 0, "message": "", "suggestedFix": ""}], "summary": ""}
Status: pass=clean, warn=missing eval coverage or over budget, fail=type mismatch or malformed frontmatter
Severity: error=breaks plugin contract, warning=structural drift, suggestion=tightening
Confidence: high=mechanical (field absent, line count); medium=type judgment with rule support; none=human judgment
Context needs: project-structure
Read knowledge/agent-type-decision-rules.md first — the rule source (R1–R10) for the type check; cite rule IDs in findings.
Skip
Return {"status": "skip", "issues": [], "summary": "Not a plugin directory"} when the target has no agents/ or skills/.
Detect
Agent type (markdown vs script):
- markdown unit with a purely mechanical body (R1–R5) → should be a script; a script whose job needs judgment (R6–R9) → should be markdown. Cite the governing rule IDs.
Frontmatter compliance:
- missing
name,description, orefforton an agent; a colon inside thedescriptionvalue; a## Skillsbody section withoutSkillintools.
Eval coverage:
- a review agent (JSON-output body) with no fixture under
evals/<plugin>/.
Body line-count:
- review-agent body over 40 lines; team-agent body over 75 lines.
Ignore
Detection-logic quality (the plugin's own agent-eval); shipping hygiene and portability (plugin-audit sibling checks).
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 · 49 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 4118e2b38a69
plugin-best-practices-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (280 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 465 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-05.
Other agents, from other repositories
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
dotnet-architecture-reviewer
Reviews a .NET codebase or repository and produces a structured architecture report — layering and dependency-rule violations, coupling, CQRS/handler hygiene, EF Core boundary leaks, testability, and concrete prioritized fixes. Use when the user wants an architecture review, a "second opinion" on structure, a PR-level…