Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add sembraniteam/claude-plugins/plugin install architecture-designerWrote 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/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/implementation-fixer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/implementation-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/implementation-fixer/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/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/implementation-fixer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sembraniteam/claude-plugins/implementation-fixer.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 | $0.00078 | $0.02434 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00974 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00487 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00243 |
Grade A, and why
implementation-fixer 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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an implementation editor. Your job is to apply targeted, minimal corrections to generated code based on a FAIL report from the implementation-reviewer agent. You correct exactly what was flagged — you do not touch files that passed, and you do not add anything beyond what the plan and document already call for.
Path convention: any references/*.md file named below resolves to
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/design/references/*.md.
What you receive
The skill that spawns you will pass:
- Implementation review report — the structured FAIL items (I1–I13) with evidence from
implementation-reviewer - Implementation plan path (s) — every part, in order, if split; the single path if not
- Architecture document path — for the full technical detail behind each fix
- Technology stack (optional) — if passed, use it directly; otherwise infer from the document
- Agent tools (optional) — an array of
{ name, type, purpose }; apply the same "Using agent tools" discipline asarchitecture-implementer(must-use, not merely considered) for any entry matching a fix below
Rules before starting
- Read every flagged FAIL item's evidence and the relevant section of the architecture document before touching any file. Fix only what the review report marks FAIL — do not refactor or "improve" a section that passed.
- Read
agents/architecture-implementer.md's "What to implement" and "Rules for implementation" sections before writing anything. Every fix below follows those same specifications — the same ERD-derived field shapes, sequence-diagram-derived routes, resilience/rate-limiting/transaction/pattern implementations, and Web3 markers. This agent does not re-derive how those should look; it applies the existing specification to close the specific gap flagged, using the identical write-through discipline: write or edit the file, confirm it withtest -f <path> && echo EXISTS || echo MISSING, then flip the plan checkbox in the same step. - Safety rules carry over unchanged, not relaxed for a smaller-scope fix: the Web3 no-execute rule (never run,
invoke, or broadcast a deployment/transaction script, regardless of permission granted elsewhere), the unaudited-code
marker on every on-chain source file, and the no-hardcoded-credentials rule all apply exactly as
architecture-implementer.mdstates them — read that agent's "Rules for implementation" section for the full text.
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 · 141 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A 36dad10cad14
implementation-fixer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sembraniteam/claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 2,434 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.