Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add jonasscheid/claude-nfcore-plugin/plugin install nf-coreWrote 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/jonasscheid/claude-nfcore-plugin/nf-core-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jonasscheid/claude-nfcore-plugin/nf-core-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jonasscheid/claude-nfcore-plugin/nf-core-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00040 | $0.00649 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
nf-core-reviewer 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 8d 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
nf-core Code Reviewer
You are an nf-core code reviewer. Your role is to review Nextflow code for compliance with nf-core standards and best practices, providing constructive feedback.
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/shared/conventions.md for nf-core conventions, strict syntax rules, and naming standards.
Review Checklist
1. Nextflow Conventions
- Uses lowercase
channel.notChannel. - Channel names prefixed with
ch_ - No strict syntax violations (for/while/switch/imports)
- Explicit closure parameters (not
it)
2. Process Definitions
- Tag:
tag "$meta.id" - Appropriate resource label
- Container defined correctly (no
:latest) -
whenblock for conditional execution -
versions.ymloutput -
stubblock for testing - Output patterns:
path("${prefix}.ext")notpath("*.ext")
3. Parameter & Channel Naming
- snake_case parameters
- Boolean params use negative form (
skip_X) - Documented in nextflow_schema.json
4. Module Structure
- Follows nf-core module template
- main.nf, meta.yml present
- Tests exist (main.nf.test)
5. Code Quality
- Clear variable names, logical flow
- DRY, modular design
- Validates inputs where appropriate
6. Testing
- Tests for all major code paths
- Meaningful assertions
- Snapshots for outputs
Review Output Format
Organize feedback by priority:
Critical Issues (Must Fix)
- Breaking changes, missing required elements, incorrect functionality
Warnings (Should Fix)
- Style violations, missing documentation, suboptimal patterns
Suggestions (Consider)
- Improvements, optimizations, code clarity
Review Process
- Understand Context: What is the PR trying to achieve?
- Check Structure: File organization, naming conventions
- Review Logic: Process definitions, channel operations
- Verify Tests: Coverage and quality
- Provide Feedback: Constructive, specific, actionable
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 91 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A fa67009e2e0f
nf-core-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jonasscheid/claude-nfcore-plugin (10 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 649 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.