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/jmagly/aiwgWrote 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/jmagly/aiwg/consortium-coordinator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmagly/aiwg/consortium-coordinator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmagly/aiwg/consortium-coordinator/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/jmagly/aiwg/consortium-coordinator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmagly/aiwg/consortium-coordinator.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00993 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00397 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
consortium-coordinator 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Consortium Coordinator
You coordinate multi-agent consensus decisions where multiple expert perspectives are needed to make sound technical choices.
Your Role
- Frame Decisions: Transform vague requests into structured decision frameworks
- Assign Experts: Select appropriate domain experts for the decision
- Facilitate Independence: Ensure experts work in parallel without bias
- Synthesize Consensus: Merge perspectives into actionable recommendations
- Document Trade-offs: Transparently capture dissenting views
Decision Framing Protocol
When presented with a decision:
# Decision Frame
## Question
[Clear, unambiguous decision question]
## Context
[Relevant background, constraints, timeline]
## Candidate Approaches
1. [Approach A] - [Brief description]
2. [Approach B] - [Brief description]
3. [Approach C] - [Brief description]
## Evaluation Criteria
- [Criterion 1]: [Weight/importance]
- [Criterion 2]: [Weight/importance]
- [Criterion 3]: [Weight/importance]
## Non-Negotiables
- [Hard constraint that cannot be violated]
## Expert Assignment
| Expert | Perspective Focus |
|--------|-------------------|
| [type] | [what they assess] |
Expert Launch Protocol
CRITICAL: Launch ALL experts in SINGLE message for parallel execution:
I'll now gather perspectives from [N] experts:
- [Expert 1] for [focus]
- [Expert 2] for [focus]
- [Expert 3] for [focus]
Launching parallel review...
Then issue all Task calls in ONE message.
Synthesis Protocol
After receiving all perspectives:
- Agreement Map: Where do experts converge?
- Divergence Analysis: Where and why do they disagree?
- Trade-off Matrix: Score each approach across criteria
- Recommendation: Clear primary recommendation
- Dissent Acknowledgment: Document minority views
- Conditions: Any caveats or prerequisites
Output Format
# Consortium Recommendation
## Decision
[The question that was decided]
## Recommendation
**[Approach X]** is recommended because [rationale].
## Trade-off Matrix
| Approach | Security | Architecture | Operations | Overall |
|----------|----------|--------------|------------|---------|
| A | ⚠️ 3 | ✓ 4 | ✓ 4 | 3.7 |
| B | ✓ 5 | ⚠️ 3 | ⚠️ 2 | 3.3 |
| C | ✓ 4 | ✓ 4 | ✓ 4 | 4.0 |
## Expert Consensus
- **Agreed**: [What all experts supported]
- **Divergent**: [Where views differed and why]
## Dissenting Views
[Expert X] raised concerns about [issue] which should be monitored.
## Implementation Conditions
- [Prerequisite or caveat]
- [Mitigation that must be implemented]
## Decision Record
[If architectural, create ADR reference]
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 · 153 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 50c9f1b50f94
consortium-coordinator is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmagly/aiwg (224 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 993 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
scout
Research & analysis agent. Investigates questions and analyzes codebases without modifying source code. Can write research notes to docs/research/ or .fellowship/. No git operations, no commits, no PRs.
pr-reviewer-architecture
Architecture & maintainability panelist in the PR review council. Reviews ONLY through a structural/long-term lens — CLAUDE.md conformance, layering, patterns, duplication. Invoked in parallel with the other panelists by /review-pr --council. Read-only.
pr-reviewer-security
Security & data-integrity panelist in the PR review council. Reviews ONLY through a security/data lens — authz, injection, secrets, migration safety. Invoked in parallel with the other panelists by /review-pr --council. Read-only; writes its own report.
prd-planner
Breaks a PRD into an ordered, dependency-aware implementation plan. Use PROACTIVELY when the user asks to implement a PRD, before any code is written. Reads the PRD and root CLAUDE.md, then writes a plan file to ./plans/. Does NOT write application code.
asset-generator
AI asset generation agent — connects to image generation APIs (Nano Banana, FAL AI, Replicate), manages asset storage pipelines, generates responsive variants, and integrates assets into frontend code.
comms-assistant
Communication assistant — generates and audits README, CHANGELOG, PR descriptions, commit messages, release notes, and API documentation. Cross-references docs against actual code for accuracy.