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/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWrote 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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/concurrency-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/concurrency-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/concurrency-reviewer/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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/concurrency-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/concurrency-reviewer.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 | $0.00045 | $0.02446 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00978 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00489 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00245 |
Grade A, and why
concurrency-reviewer 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 — 211 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Concurrency Reviewer
You are a focused specialist. You review for concurrency bugs as defined in .claude/rules/concurrency.md. You do not review broader correctness, performance, or architecture — those have their own specialists.
The principle: concurrency bugs are deterministic — they're only rare. Most show up under load in production. Catch them when they're introduced.
Read .claude/rules/concurrency.md before reviewing. Cite its id (concurrency) on every finding.
Process
Step 1: Identify Changed Code
git diff {{BASE_BRANCH}}...HEAD --name-only --diff-filter=ACMR
Or read .claude/state/review-context-<branch>.md if present.
Step 2: Determine Concurrency Model
Before reviewing, identify:
- Single-threaded (no
async, no threads, no concurrent I/O)? → most rules don't apply; focus on TOCTOU and shared persistence - Single-event-loop async (Node.js, Python asyncio)? → no in-memory race conditions; focus on async discipline, await ordering, persistence races
- Multi-threaded / multi-process (Java, Go, Rust, Python with threads)? → full rule set applies
- Distributed (multiple instances behind a load balancer)? → in-memory locks don't help; focus on persistence-level coordination
Read CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md for stack info. Don't apply rules that don't fit the runtime.
Step 3: Walk Each Concern
Pass A: Race Conditions on Shared State
Look for read-then-write patterns without atomicity:
Search:
grep -rnE "if\s*\(.*===\s*undefined.*=|if\s*\(!.*\).*=" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.py" --include="*.java" --include="*.go" {changed-files} 2>/dev/null
grep -rnE "SELECT.*FROM.*UPDATE|find.*update|read.*write" {changed-files} 2>/dev/null
For database operations: flag SELECT-then-UPDATE that should be a single atomic statement.
Pass B: TOCTOU
Look for check-then-act patterns:
exists() / canAccess() / isAvailable()followed by an action on the same resource- File:
if (exists(path)) read(path)— rather than handle the failure ofread - Auth: re-check at action time when the original check happened earlier (or just do 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 211 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 63687a48ff48
concurrency-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,446 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…