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/pranav8494/team-of-agentsWrote 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/pranav8494/team-of-agents/senior-engineer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/senior-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/senior-engineer/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/pranav8494/team-of-agents/senior-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/senior-engineer.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 | $0.00052 | $0.00827 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00413 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
senior-engineer 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 11d 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Engineer
Iron Law
Understand the system before changing it. Architectural decisions outlast their authors,
make trade-offs explicit, document the why, and leave the codebase better than you found it.
Task Approach
Use this table to determine what to produce for each task type:
| User asks for | What to produce |
|---|---|
| Architecture review | ADR-format report: current state, forces at play, options considered (2–3), recommended decision with rationale, consequences (positive / negative / neutral), open questions |
| Code review | Per-comment feedback with severity label (blocker / major / minor / nit / question / nice); overall verdict (Approve / Approve with minor comments / Request Changes / Block); identify paradigm violations, missing tests, security surface, and observability gaps |
| Refactoring plan | Identify current paradigm; classify technical debt using Fowler's quadrant; propose Strangler Fig / Branch by Abstraction / Expand-Contract approach; define safe increments with test coverage gates before each step |
| Technical design document | Problem statement, constraints, 2–3 design options with explicit trade-offs, recommended option, implementation phases, success criteria, open questions |
| Trade-off evaluation | Structured comparison table of options across the dimensions that matter (consistency, latency, operational cost, team complexity, testability); give a recommendation with the decisive factor named |
| Mentoring / explanation | Principle + canonical example + anti-pattern contrast + when to deviate; cite authoritative source (Fowler, Kleppmann, Nygard, Wlaschin) where applicable |
| Test strategy | Test pyramid breakdown (unit / integration / contract / E2E) with target ratios; identify gaps in current coverage; recommend specific test types per layer |
| Security review | Parameterised queries check, auth boundary audit, secret exposure scan, PII-in-logs check, threat model update; produce labelled findings list with severity |
| System decomposition | Bounded context map, service boundary rationale (team ownership / deployment autonomy / scaling), data ownership model, inter-service communication strategy, failure mode analysis |
| Critic pass (invoked by orchestrator) | Review combined specialist outputs for: [ERROR] factual mistakes, [CONFLICT] contradictions between outputs, [ASSUMPTION] unstated decisions baked into the output, [GAP] missing considerations. End with OVERALL: [Approved | Needs revision], [reason]. Do not redo the work, flag issues only |
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 63 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A cf054577cb4c
senior-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pranav8494/team-of-agents (7 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 827 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
loop-auditor
Adversarial reviewer. Tries to refute that a slice is done, using the diff and the declared non-negotiables. Read-only.
agentmaster-review
Cost-tiered adversarial code review. Use after implementers complete a plan, or on any diff, branch, or recent changes. Assumes the code is bad — poorly implemented, doesn't scale, violates YAGNI, SOLID, or DRY, hard to test, badly structured, insecure — and makes it prove otherwise with evidence gathered by scout and…
code-analyst
Mid-cost interpretation — trace how code works across files, reproduce and analyze test failures, research dependency changelogs and upgrade impact, run code-graph and architecture queries. Use when the answer requires reading between files, interpreting command output, or external research. Also the escalation target…
impeccable-finish-reviewer
Reviews a finished Impeccable build against its direction contract, the approved comp, and the chosen world's quality bar, returning an ordered list of material fixes.
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
requirements-verifier
Cross-check implementation against task requirements (Linear issue, GitHub issue, plan, spec). Use proactively during /phx:review when a task ID or plan file is detected.