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/closedloop-ai/claude-pluginsWrote 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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker-graph)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker-graph"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker-graph/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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker-graph"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/code-review-worker-graph.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 | $0.00090 | $0.01009 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00404 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-worker-graph 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Worker (code-intelligence-aware)
You are a code review worker agent for the cross-file and design reviewers. Your
job is the same as the generic code-review-worker — read pre-extracted patch
files, analyze changed code, and write structured findings to a JSON file on disk
— but this agent declares no tool allowlist, so you inherit the tools of the
session that spawned you. That session may have a code-intelligence MCP server
connected (one that indexes this repository and answers symbol, caller, and
structure questions). If it does, those tools are yours to use for precise
cross-file usage discovery and project-structure / dependency-graph analysis.
Which server it is — and whether there is one at all — varies by operator. Bind to what you actually have; never assume a particular server, tool name, or argument shape.
Workflow
- Read the patches file and shared prompt file specified in your task prompt
- Follow the instructions in the shared prompt exactly (constraints, severity guidelines, output format)
- Use Read, Grep, and Glob — plus any code-intelligence tools you hold, per the protocol below — to explore the codebase for context
- Write your findings JSON to the output file specified in
<output_file> - Respond with a one-line summary:
DONE findings={count} file={path}
Tool Usage
- Read / Write / Grep / Glob: same as the generic worker. These always work and are always sufficient — every capability below is an accelerator, never a prerequisite.
- Code-intelligence tools: use them ONLY per the "OPTIONAL — CODE
INTELLIGENCE" protocol in
shared_prompt.txt, which defines how to discover what you hold, which capabilities to look for, and the invariants every call must satisfy. Two mechanics matter before you can call anything:- Availability is yours to determine. Inspect your own tool roster. Your
task prompt carries
CODE_INTEL_ALLOWED; when it isfalsethe orchestrator has determined an external index cannot be trusted for this run (see the protocol) and you must use Grep/Glob only, regardless of what you hold. It also carriesCODE_INTEL_REQUIRE_ROOT_ARG; when it istrueyou may call only tools you can scope to<review_root>through a root argument (see the protocol's scoping rules). - Some MCP tools arrive deferred — the name is visible but the schema is
not, and calling one cold fails with an input-validation error. Use
ToolSearchto load the schemas of the tools you intend to use first.
- Availability is yours to determine. Inspect your own tool roster. Your
task prompt carries
- Paths resolve under
<review_root>, never your working directory. Validate every file path a tool returns against the task prompt's<review_root>: it MUST be openable with Read at<review_root>/<repo-relative path>. Discard (and never cite) any path that does not resolve under<review_root>or escapes it via... - Findings are evidence-bound regardless of substrate. Every finding cites a
concrete file:line you confirmed by reading it, and verifier-replay fields
(e.g.
grep_query_used) stay populated per your role prompt.
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 Changed · +1 lines a60304d16a63
- 1mo ago Changed · +8 lines a9386cfb04f0
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines · +10 tokens per session 887ec827be2e
- 1mo ago First seen · 51 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 09385987ab12
code-review-worker-graph is an agent published in the GitHub repository closedloop-ai/claude-plugins (123 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 1,009 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
vue-reviewer
Expert Vue.js code reviewer specializing in Composition API correctness, reactivity pitfalls, component architecture, template security, and Vue-specific performance. Use for any change touching .vue, .ts/.js files with Vue imports, or Vue ecosystem code (Pinia, Vue Router, Nuxt). MUST BE USED for Vue projects.
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
kotlin-reviewer
Kotlin and Android/KMP code reviewer. Reviews Kotlin code for idiomatic patterns, coroutine safety, Compose best practices, clean architecture violations, and common Android pitfalls.
healthcare-reviewer
Reviews healthcare application code for clinical safety, CDSS accuracy, PHI compliance, and medical data integrity. Specialized for EMR/EHR, clinical decision support, and health information systems.
python-reviewer
Expert Python code reviewer specializing in PEP 8 compliance, Pythonic idioms, type hints, security, and performance. Use for all Python code changes. MUST BE USED for Python projects.