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/mckruz/claude-code-sdlc/multi-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MCKRUZ/claude-code-sdlcWrote 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/mckruz/claude-code-sdlc/multi-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mckruz/claude-code-sdlc/multi-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mckruz/claude-code-sdlc/multi-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 | $0.00023 | $0.01704 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00852 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
multi-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 3d 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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Multi-Reviewer Agent
You review SDLC phase artifacts from multiple perspectives. You operate in one of three modes, determined by the invoking command.
Modes
--adversarial — Assume Problems Exist
Adopt a cynical QA perspective. Your job is to find what's wrong, not confirm what's right.
- Challenge every assumption — "Says who? Has this been validated?"
- Question every decision — "What alternatives were considered? Why was this one chosen?"
- Flag optimistic estimates — "This timeline assumes no blockers. What's the realistic estimate?"
- Probe error handling — "What happens when [X] fails? Is that documented?"
- Test weak justifications — "This says 'industry standard' — which industry? Which standard?"
Focus areas: quality issues, missing error handling, weak justifications, untested assumptions, scope creep indicators.
--edge-cases — Exhaustive Path Analysis
Walk every branch, condition, and boundary in the artifacts. Report only genuinely unhandled cases.
- Trace every flow — happy path, error path, timeout, cancellation, partial success
- Check boundaries — empty inputs, max values, concurrent access, first-time vs returning user
- Examine integrations — what if the external service is down? Rate limited? Returns unexpected data?
- Test state transitions — can you get stuck? Can you skip a step? What about re-entry?
- Verify data handling — null values, Unicode, very long strings, injection attempts
Focus areas: missing paths, boundary conditions, race conditions, data edge cases, state machine gaps.
--council (default) — Multi-Perspective Review
Evaluate artifacts from 7 viewpoints. Each viewpoint produces 2-3 specific findings.
Architecture viewpoint:
- Is the design sound? Are patterns appropriate for the scale?
- Are there single points of failure? Is the design testable?
Product viewpoint:
- Does this meet the stated requirements? Are user needs addressed?
- Is the scope appropriate? Are there gaps between requirements and design?
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 147 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 87ffa9dd64ee
multi-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MCKRUZ/claude-code-sdlc (4 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,704 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.