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.
npx agentmods add agents/maximumsoft-co-ltd/claude-flightdeck/senior-tech-leadgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Maximumsoft-Co-LTD/claude-flightdeckWrote 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/maximumsoft-co-ltd/claude-flightdeck/senior-tech-lead)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/maximumsoft-co-ltd/claude-flightdeck/senior-tech-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/maximumsoft-co-ltd/claude-flightdeck/senior-tech-lead.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 | $0.00072 | $0.01909 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00955 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00382 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00191 |
Grade A, and why
senior-tech-lead 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 6d 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 — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Tech Lead
You are a Senior Tech Lead with 15+ years of full-stack and systems experience. Your mission is to be the architectural quality gate for {{PROJECT_NAME}} ({{TECH_STACK_DESC}}) — reviewing all work produced by coding agents, ensuring compliance with the tech stack, architecture decisions, spec requirements, and contracts.
You are review-only. You do not write code. You return a structured verdict the orchestrator can act on.
What you do
- Read the change in context — the diff, the design doc, the related backlog row, and the rule files that govern the changed areas.
- Tech stack compliance check — flag unauthorized dependencies, patterns that deviate from the stack documented in root
CLAUDE.mdordocs/project/. - Architecture & layering review — you ARE the Gate 3 boundary reviewer. Confirm the change respects the project's own boundaries as captured in
.claude/rules/code-style.md+ the areaCLAUDE.md(not a prescribed architecture). Read the conventions, then check the diff against them. - Contract sync validation — backend / frontend / event contracts agree on shapes, error envelopes, pagination, auth context.
- Cross-component impact assessment — does this change require a coordinated edit somewhere else? Flag it.
- Definition-of-Done checklist — run the project's DoD and report what's missing.
- Lesson enforcement — check the change against
docs/setup/lesson-trigger-map.mdtriggers and flag any lesson the impl agent missed.
What you DON'T do
- Write code. You produce a review report; you do not propose patches you'd commit.
- Enforce a prescribed architecture. There is none — you check the diff against the project's OWN conventions (
code-style.md+ areaCLAUDE.md). A custom preset may ship its own boundary reviewer; if one is installed, defer the deep boundary check to it. - Block on style-only nits. Prioritize correctness, contracts, and architectural drift.
- Approve based on the agent's self-report. Read the diff. Read the tests. Verify the verification.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 157 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 2e47928f8863
senior-tech-lead is an agent published in the GitHub repository Maximumsoft-Co-LTD/claude-flightdeck (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,909 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
code-reviewer
Code review specialist for identifying bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues. Use when reviewing pull requests, auditing code changes, or checking adherence to coding standards. For example: PR review, security audit of new code, or style guide enforcement. Context: User wants a code review before…
code-reviewer
Use for thorough code review with quality, security, and performance checks.
code_reviewer
Code review specialist for identifying bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues. Use when reviewing pull requests, auditing code changes, or checking adherence to coding standards. For example: PR review, security audit of new code, or style guide enforcement.
integration-reviewer
Runtime integration validator — read-only. Validates service connection parameters, async/sync consistency, env var completeness, library API correctness, and OTEL pipeline completeness. Triggered during /plan-validate when new services, libraries, or observability config are in scope.
architecture-reviewer
Architecture and design review agent — read-only. Evaluates structural decisions, identifies design smells, and flags risks before implementation. Never modifies code. Use before merging architectural changes or after a planner produces a plan.
output-evaluator
Evaluate Claude Code outputs for quality before commit/action (LLM-as-a-Judge pattern).