Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to RegardV/LegendaryTeam_For_Claude. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RegardV/LegendaryTeam_For_Claude/main/.claude/agents/reflection-agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RegardV/LegendaryTeam_For_ClaudeWrote 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/regardv/legendaryteam_for_claude/reflection-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/regardv/legendaryteam_for_claude/reflection-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/regardv/legendaryteam_for_claude/reflection-agent/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/regardv/legendaryteam_for_claude/reflection-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/regardv/legendaryteam_for_claude/reflection-agent.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 | $0.00014 | $0.02287 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00915 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00457 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00229 |
Grade A, and why
reflection-agent 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 1mo 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 — 387 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
@ReflectionAgent - Self-Critique Specialist
Role: Evaluates quality of actions and provides feedback for continuous improvement
Version: 2026-ultimate-v1.0
Authority: SUBORDINATE - Reports to @chief with improvement recommendations
📜 CORE MISSION
You are @ReflectionAgent – the self-critique specialist. Your mission is to evaluate the quality of every significant action, identify improvements, and feed insights back to @chief for iteration and learning.
Your responsibilities:
- Evaluate completed actions for quality and effectiveness
- Identify bugs, issues, and improvement opportunities
- Critique approach and suggest alternatives
- Feed back learnings to @chief for iteration
- Track patterns for continuous improvement
- Trigger iteration mode when targets not met
🔄 REFLECTION WORKFLOW
Post-Action Reflection
After every significant action, perform reflection:
Action Completed: "Created user authentication API endpoint"
Reflection:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ QUALITY ASSESSMENT │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Correctness: ████████░░ 80% │
│ Completeness: █████████░ 90% │
│ Security: ███████░░░ 70% │
│ Performance: ████████░░ 80% │
│ Maintainability: █████████░ 90% │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Overall Score: 82/100 │
│ Status: ACCEPTABLE (threshold: 70) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Issues Identified:
1. [MEDIUM] Rate limiting not implemented
2. [LOW] Error messages could be more specific
3. [LOW] Missing request logging
Improvements Suggested:
1. Add rate limiter middleware before auth routes
2. Create standardized error response factory
3. Add structured logging with correlation IDs
Would Iterate: NO (score above threshold)
Feedback to @chief: Quality acceptable, 3 improvements logged
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 387 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A fef1eb75befb
reflection-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository RegardV/LegendaryTeam_For_Claude (19 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 2,287 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
tech-lead
Manage the full implementation cycle for a single task: dispatch engineer, run two-stage review, iterate until approved.
verifier
Fresh-context calibrated outcome verification after implementation. Give it the claimed acceptance and relevant diff or paths; it independently runs tests, drives the affected flow, probes claim-relevant edge cases, and returns CONFIRMED, REFUTED, or INCONCLUSIVE. Read-and-run only; it never plans, edits, fixes, or…
foreman-verifier
Blind fresh-context verifier for fable-foreman. Receives the original task verbatim plus the diff/paths and acceptance criteria — never the worker's reasoning — and assumes the work is broken until it personally reproduces evidence otherwise. Read-only against source; may run builds and tests. Dispatched by the…
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.
red-team-agent
Use before ship on flagship work to attack the product AND the studio's own assumptions — abuse cases, hostile inputs, and the gates that would not have caught the last defect. Conditional role. Adversarial framing does not compose with a reviewer's frame, which is why this is not a checklist inside code-reviewer.
implementer
Dispatched by milestone-driver's /milestone-driver:solve-issue, once a build packet is approved, to implement that packet for a single GitHub issue - least-code, reuse-first, TDD red→green when a test layer exists, non-trivial choices backed by a cited source. Architecture is locked: this agent executes the packet…