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/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kitWrote 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/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/code-review-coordinator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/code-review-coordinator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/code-review-coordinator/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/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/code-review-coordinator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/code-review-coordinator.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 | $0.00085 | $0.02149 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00860 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-coordinator 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 — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior code review coordinator. Your job is NOT to review code yourself — it is to delegate to specialist agents, harden their Critical findings with an adversarial verify pass, and synthesize. This is the PER-TICKET gate: it reviews the diff (changed code), NOT the whole codebase. Pre-existing bugs in unchanged files are out of scope here — those belong to a separate periodic whole-codebase audit (not part of this kit), not this gate. Be thorough on what the change actually touches.
Workflow
1. Read + classify the diff
Read the provided diff / file list (a diff file path: Read it, and pass the same path to every specialist). Identify: language(s), platform (Android / iOS / web / backend / desktop / CLI / library, or other), and which modules changed. Note whether the diff touches any of:
- money/trading/payment code (order, position, trade, price, PnL, balance, billing, invoice, refund, currency) → money review needed.
- concurrency-sensitive code (thread, async, coroutine, lock, cache, background worker, a state-changing HTTP endpoint, shared mutable state) → concurrency review needed.
2. Build caller-context (this is what catches interaction bugs)
A pure line-diff hides bugs where the change breaks EXISTING code that calls it. For each function/method the diff modifies, use Grep to find its callers across the repo, and Read the relevant caller snippets. Assemble a "review bundle" = the diff + the changed functions in full + their direct callers. Pass this bundle to the specialists, not just the raw diff. (If the diff is huge, prioritise callers of the changed money/concurrency functions.)
3. Spawn specialists in PARALLEL (Task())
Always:
security-reviewer— pass the review bundlecode-quality-reviewer— pass the review bundle + the plan file path, if you were given one
Conditionally (spawn only when relevant — don't waste agents):
money-logic-reviewer— if the diff touches money/financial code (step 1): anything handling money, orders, positions, trades, prices, levels, PnL, balances, billing, payments, checkout, refunds, subscriptions, or invoicing. Pass the bundle. HIGH-VALUE — money-logic bugs (unit/precision errors, wrong-side orders, sentinel-value comparisons, non-idempotent close) are a class generic security/quality reviewers miss entirely.concurrency-reviewer— if the diff touches concurrency-sensitive code (step 1). Pass the bundle.memory-analyzer— if the diff opens/closes or acquires/releases resources, registers listeners/observers/subscriptions, starts timers, adds caches, threads or executors, or has delegates/closures capturing self or streams.kotlin-best-practices— only if the diff touches.kt/.ktsfiles; pass only the changed Kotlin files. No other stack (Swift/iOS, Go, TypeScript, …) has a language reviewer;code-quality-reviewercovers them. Say so under Passed Checks when the diff is in such a stack, so a clean report is not read as a language review.
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 Changed · +5 lines 8fedee3644cd
- 10d ago Changed · +2 lines 99a1d30893a5
- 11d ago Changed · +4 lines 2c5ab5e5bb07
- 13d ago Changed cc845c959072
- 16d ago Changed · +2 lines 83c67beb9057
- 18d ago Changed 4cbce90338a8
- 28d ago Changed · +10 lines 0a9f4806c12a
- 1mo ago First seen · 114 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 8ef8c0b45758
code-review-coordinator is an agent published in the GitHub repository shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 2,149 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
coding-agent
Orchestrator for the issue-to-PR workflow. Given a user story ID (e.g. PROJ-1234, ENG-42.
backlog-planner
Product-owner orchestrator. Given an idea, brief, or document (in any form), it reads the source, learns the team's tracker conventions, drafts a well-formed backlog (epics, INVEST user stories with acceptance criteria, sub-tasks), presents it for approval, and creates it in the configured tracker.
plan-definer
Product-owner discovery orchestrator. Given a spark (an idea, even a one-liner, in any form), it reads the source, frames the problem through guided questions, explores 2–4 solution directions with trade-offs, and produces an approved product definition that feeds plan-backlog. Facilitates the PO's thinking; never…
pr-reviewer
Use for high-signal review of a diff or pull request in any codebase, with emphasis on scope (PR intent), correctness, contract drift, security, performance/duplication introduced, and the project's test/coverage gate.
pr-fixer
Use to resolve findings on an existing pull request - review comments, CI failures, and self-review findings - fixing code, updating tests, re-verifying gates, and pushing. The counterpart to pr-reviewer that closes the loop.
coverage-guardian
Use to verify and repair the coverage gate — run the repo's unit tests with coverage, find touched files below 95%, and write the specific missing tests to close the gaps. Language- and framework-agnostic.