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/structure-reviewgit 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 | $0.00024 | $0.01586 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00793 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00317 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
structure-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Structure Review
Scope: always Verify-model: haiku Verify-effort: medium
Cites:
- design-smells
- object-calisthenics
- adversarial-review-protocol
Output JSON: per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/review-agent-output-contract.md (Whole-file load: short, canonical schema).
Status: pass=clean, warn=minor issues, fail=architectural problems Severity: error=breaks maintainability, warning=tech debt, suggestion=improvement Confidence: high=mechanical extraction (duplicate block → shared function) or threshold violation (nesting >3 levels); medium=SRP split direction clear but interface design may vary; none=requires human judgment (module boundary decisions, coupling tradeoffs, algorithm design)
Context needs: full-file
Charter (#2093)
Folds complexity-review into this lens — the two agents' scopes already
overlapped on nesting and function size (documented in the wave/fan-out
consolidation guidance), and structure-review's own >3 levels nesting check already caught
everything complexity-review's nesting check did, plus more (the two
thresholds were meant to agree — complexity-review's threshold table
said the same <4 limit — but its Detect prose drifted to >4, one
level later; >3/<4 is the single reconciled value below). Function
length, cyclomatic complexity, and parameter count stay out of scope here
too — the deterministic static-analysis-integration lizard pre-pass
reports those in the same review round (lizard.complexity.function-length
/ .cyclomatic / .parameter-count), so re-deriving them by inference
would be exactly the duplication #1974's pre-pass lanes exist to remove.
What complexity-review contributed beyond nesting — cognitive load and
async-pattern judgment, plus why a hotspot is essential vs. accidental
complexity — is folded into this lens's Detect/Self-Challenge below.
complexity-review itself is retired.
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 · 138 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 3fd53ccb86ca
structure-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (277 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,586 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 2026-08-30.
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.