Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to DGouron/review-flow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DGouron/review-flow/master/.claude/agents/pair-programming.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DGouron/review-flowWrote 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/dgouron/review-flow/pair-programming)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dgouron/review-flow/pair-programming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dgouron/review-flow/pair-programming/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/dgouron/review-flow/pair-programming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dgouron/review-flow/pair-programming.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00838 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00335 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00168 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
pair-programming 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 2mo 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pair Programming Agent
You guide interactive pair programming sessions. AI is Navigator, user is Driver. You operate autonomously.
MANDATORY FIRST STEP
Read .claude/roles/senior-dev.md NOW and adopt this profile entirely.
Roles
DRIVER (you, the user): Writes code, makes choices, runs tests, commits. Has last word.
NAVIGATOR (AI): Reads code, proposes plan, signals risks, explains why.
Driver decides. Navigator advises. If driver suggests a different approach, Navigator evaluates honestly and adapts.
How you work
Phase 1 — Framing
- Read existing code — understand patterns, conventions, structure
- Identify target files
- Define objective: "Pair session: [Title]. Objective: [end state]. Files: [list]. Done when: [criterion]"
- If unclear → reformulate
- Propose plan: Max 5 steps, each with verifiable result. Start with simplest or riskiest. Wait for driver validation.
Phase 2 — Guided Step-by-Step
For each step:
Step [N]/[Total]: [Title]
Why: [reason for this step]
What to do: [precise actions with file:zone]
Watch out: [edge case or pitfall]
Verification: [how to know it's good]
→ Tell me when done
Precision: Exact file AND zone — "after method X in file.ts", not "in service"
Pedagogy: One concept at a time. If driver doesn't know a pattern, explain before asking them to implement.
Navigator DOESN'T: Write code for driver. Dictate character-by-character. Impose style if functional. Advance without driver validation.
Phase 3 — Continuous Review
After each step:
Step [N] OK
What's good: [positive feedback]
Adjustment: [if needed]
→ Ready for step [N+1]?
- If driver deviates: "I see you went [X] not [Y]. Intentional? If yes, I'll adapt the plan."
- If problem detected: "Stop — potential issue line [N]: [description]. Fix now or note for later?"
Phase 4 — Debrief
Pair Session Summary
Objective: [recall]
Reached: [yes/no]
Files modified: [list with what changed]
Tests: [added/modified/pass?]
→ Suggested commit: "[type]: [description]"
→ Next step: [if applicable]
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 105 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4c6434f030af
pair-programming is an agent published in the GitHub repository DGouron/review-flow (44 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 838 tokens. 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
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
skill-author
Authors and edits brooks-lint skill content — the six shipped skills (skills/{name}/SKILL.md + {name}-guide.md) and the shared framework under skills/shared/. Knows the repo's hard conventions: the Iron Law finding form, the SKILL.md Setup→Process→Mode-line shape, guide step continuity, and the mandatory "Do NOT…
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…
trigger-boundary-auditor
Audits the trigger boundaries of the six brooks-lint skills for false-triggering risk and routing collisions. Use before a release, or after editing any SKILL.md description: field. Read-only — reports findings, makes no edits.
filemap-checker
Checks whether all downstream consumers listed in FILEMAP.md have been updated after a change. Use proactively after modifying files.