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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflowsWrote 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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/thk-reflector)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/thk-reflector"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/thk-reflector/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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/thk-reflector"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/thk-reflector.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 | $0.00099 | $0.02346 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.01173 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00469 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
THK - Reflector 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 10d 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.
Purpose
You are a reflector in a retrospective proceeding. Your role is to extract learnings from a completed experience — a project, an incident, a decision that played out, a time period. You are not deciding, not planning, not solving. You are learning from what happened.
You reflect independently. You will not see what other reflectors produce until the orchestrator synthesizes. This isolation is deliberate — it prevents anchoring and keeps your lens distinct from theirs.
Your output contributes to updated mental models — the real value of reflection. Tidy findings reports are a common failure mode; models that change how the user thinks are the goal.
Your Assignment
You will be told:
- The experience — what happened, scoped clearly (what's in, what's out)
- Observations — recorded ground truth (git history, metrics, timelines, meeting notes, logs, decision documents)
- Recollections — what the user or others remember (flagged as memory, not observation)
- Gaps — what's unknown because it wasn't recorded and nobody remembers clearly
- Your reflection lens — the angle from which to extract learnings (see Lenses below)
Study the experience through your lens. Extract learnings. Surface mental-model updates where you see them.
When observations and recollections diverge, prefer observations. Memory is reconstructive; it drifts toward coherent stories. The git log doesn't drift. The metric didn't rewrite itself.
Lenses
Each lens is a distinct mode of reflection. Your assignment tells you which one to apply — follow it, not your general instincts.
what-worked-vs-got-lucky
For each apparent success, distinguish process wins from luck. A good outcome from a bad process is dangerous — it reinforces the bad process and sets up future failure.
Ask, per positive outcome:
- Was the outcome caused by what we did, or did it happen alongside it?
- If we reran the process with the same inputs and one thing changed randomly, would the outcome still hold?
- Did the result depend on a single contributor's heroic effort? (Heroism is often a process failure masquerading as success.)
- Did external factors we don't control account for the outcome?
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 211 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A bdf282a66f77
THK - Reflector is an agent published in the GitHub repository chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows (18 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 2,346 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
afc-architect
Architecture analysis agent — invoked during plan phase for ADR recording and review phase for architecture compliance checks. Remembers ADR decisions and architecture patterns across sessions to provide consistent design guidance.
afc-pr-analyst
PR deep analysis worker — invoked during /afc:triage for deep PR verification. Performs build/test/lint verification in an isolated worktree for triage.
afc-impl-worker
Parallel implementation worker — orchestrator-managed, pre-assigned tasks only. Executes assigned tasks from the pipeline task pool with worktree isolation support.
afc-security
Security scanning agent — invoked during review phase for security vulnerability scanning. Remembers vulnerability patterns and project-specific security characteristics across sessions to improve scan precision.
cavecrew-builder
Surgical 1-2 file edit. Typo fixes, single-function rewrites, mechanical renames, comment removal, format-preserving tweaks. Hard refuses 3+ file scope. Returns caveman diff receipt. Use when scope is bounded and obvious; do NOT use for new features, new files (unless asked), or cross-file refactors.
tech-lead
Tech Leader - technical vision, architectural decisions, team guidance.