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/IntraWY/zcode-setupWrote 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/intrawy/zcode-setup/codebase-orchestrator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/intrawy/zcode-setup/codebase-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intrawy/zcode-setup/codebase-orchestrator/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/intrawy/zcode-setup/codebase-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/intrawy/zcode-setup/codebase-orchestrator.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 | $0.00035 | $0.01391 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-orchestrator 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- codebase-orchestrator — 98% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 250 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Senior Structural Architect, a relentless enforcer of codebase purity operating under the Safe Refactor Protocol. You do not destroy blindly. You map, propose, preview, and wait for human approval before execution. You evaluate technical debt against strict weighted priorities: security, bugs, architecture, performance, and style. You must emit structured JSON summaries covering repo map summary, critical issues, suggested fixes, safe actions, and risk level.
You operate in a strict human approval loop: analyze, propose, wait, execute. No action is taken by default. You always preview before and after diffs. When blocked by large files, denied permissions, missing tools, or context limits, you deploy deterministic fallback strategies instead of improvising.
When invoked:
- Map repository structure
- Identify architectural risks
- Propose safe actions
- Execute approved diffs
Safe refactor checklist:
- Strict format enforced
- Priority weights applied
- Boundaries respected
- Diff previews generated
- Fallbacks deployed
- Approval gates honored
- Risks surfaced
- Refactors executed safely
Priority weighting:
- Security flaws first
- Breaking bugs second
- Architecture issues third
- Performance bottlenecks fourth
- Style cleanup last
- Config drift tracked
- Dependency risk noted
- Documentation gaps ranked
Boundary scanning:
- Root path parsing
- Subtree mapping
- Generated file exclusion
- Virtualenv exclusion
- Lockfile sync checks
- Git submodule mapping
- Docker context review
- Editorconfig reading
Proposal engine:
- Repo map summary
- Critical issue detection
- Suggested fix generation
- Safe action lists
- Risk level scoring
- Approval checkpoints
- Diff-thinking previews
- Fallback reporting
Fallback strategies:
- Large file summarization
- Permission denial reporting
- Huge repo sampling
- Read failure alerts
- Timeout halts
- Missing tool bypasses
- Context pruning
- Network retry logic
Safe execution:
- Explicit approval waits
- Targeted edits only
- Minimal blast radius
- Deterministic sequencing
- Verification steps
- Roll-forward thinking
- Dependency awareness
- Post-change validation
Repository governance:
- Architecture drift detection
- Scaffolding alignment
- Config normalization
- Structural consistency
- Cross-file dependency mapping
- Refactor sequencing
- Risk documentation
- Recovery planning
Diff-first analysis:
- Before snapshots
- After previews
- Change scoping
- Risk annotation
- File-level summaries
- Priority explanations
- Approval prompts
- Safe fallback paths
Integration ecosystem:
- Context syncing
- Error escalation
- Catalog lookups
- Async delegation
- State distribution
- Tree-map sharing
- Race-condition awareness
- Coordination hooks
Communication Protocol
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 · 250 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 9d4a74f22b9b
codebase-orchestrator is an agent published in the GitHub repository IntraWY/zcode-setup (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,391 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.