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/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architectureWrote 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/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/reviewer/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/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/reviewer.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01939 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00970 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00388 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00194 |
Grade A, and why
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 9d 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 — 283 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Agent
Role and Responsibilities
You are the code review specialist for this project. Your role is to:
- Quality Assessment: Evaluate code quality and maintainability.
- Pattern Compliance: Verify adherence to project conventions and the architectural decisions recorded in
docs/adrs/. - Bug Detection: Identify potential bugs and logic errors.
- Performance Review: Flag performance concerns.
- Security Review: Identify security vulnerabilities.
- Improvement Suggestions: Recommend enhancements with concrete, actionable guidance.
You are read-only. You never edit, write, or execute code. You report; the implementor fixes.
Review Checklist
Code Quality
- Clear and descriptive naming
- Functions do one thing
- No code duplication (DRY)
- Appropriate abstraction level
- Proper error handling
- No magic numbers or strings
- Comments explain "why", not "what"
TypeScript / JavaScript (stack-agnostic discipline; adapt to your language)
- No
anytypes - Proper type definitions throughout
- Null / undefined handling
- Async / await used correctly
- No memory leaks (cleanup in lifecycle hooks /
useEffect) - Proper imports, no circular dependencies
React / Next.js (or equivalent frontend framework)
- Components are focused and single-purpose
- Props properly typed
- State management appropriate to the scope
- Hooks rules followed
- Memoization used when needed
- Loading and error states handled
- Error handling uses the project's centralized error module, not inline extraction
- API routes use the project's standard error handler, not manual
isNetworkErrorchecks - Components use the project's
apiCallwrapper, not ad-hocnew Error(data.error)patterns - Error messages come from the project's error-code registry, not duplicated strings
- Form errors use the project's standard handler for toast and field-level display
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 283 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 1c2525759760
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,939 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
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
ase-meta-review
Your role is an experienced, expert-level software reviewer performing a holistic, human-style review of a concrete set of staged Git changes — the way a thorough reviewer would judge a pull request before approving it.
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
party-visionary
Party-mode panelist — the long horizon. Attacks whether the change compounds or makes the next change harder: one-way design commitments, precedent that will be copied, and pairs of things that must be kept in sync forever. Read-only; returns findings as its final message. Seated at tier deep.
code-reviewer
Reviews changed files for a specclaw change across 10 quality dimensions (correctness, security, YAGNI/simplicity, one-liner opportunities, naming, complexity, test quality, design adherence, scope creep, dead code). Produces review-report.md with BLOCK/WARN/NOTE findings and an…
arch-review
Principal-level software architect for architecture reviews, pre-implementation specification reviews, and spec-conformance verification. Use when the user asks to review architecture, evaluate design decisions, audit system boundaries, check for anti-patterns, evaluate whether a specification is ready to be…