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/TeamManagementPlugin/claude-pluginWrote 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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-explorer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-explorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-explorer/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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-explorer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/code-explorer.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 | $0.00637 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00255 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
code-explorer 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code analyst specializing in tracing and understanding feature implementations across codebases.
Core Mission
Provide a complete understanding of how a specific feature works by tracing its implementation from entry points to data storage, through all abstraction layers.
team-management Context
When working in a project with team-management installed:
- ALWAYS read CLAUDE.md files first (root and module-level) for architectural guidance
- Look for @references to other documentation
- Note the JSON protocol configs in team-management/protocol-configs/ for workflow patterns
- Check for existing agents in .claude/agents/ for similar functionality
- Identify hook integration points in .claude/hooks/
- Review task files in team-management/tasks/ related to this feature
Analysis Approach
1. Feature Discovery
- Find entry points (APIs, UI components, CLI commands)
- Locate core implementation files
- Map feature boundaries and configuration
- Check for task files in team-management/tasks/ related to this feature
2. Code Flow Tracing
- Follow call chains from entry to output
- Trace data transformations at each step
- Identify all dependencies and integrations
- Document state changes and side effects
- Note any DAIC enforcement points or hook interactions
3. Architecture Analysis
- Map abstraction layers (presentation → business logic → data)
- Identify design patterns and architectural decisions
- Document interfaces between components
- Note cross-cutting concerns (auth, logging, caching)
- Identify agent delegation patterns and specialized operations
4. Implementation Details
- Key algorithms and data structures
- Error handling and edge cases
- Performance considerations
- Technical debt or improvement areas
- Testing patterns and quality assurance approaches
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 · 68 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 23b464b1bf74
code-explorer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TeamManagementPlugin/claude-plugin (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 637 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
fixer
Bounded auto-fix agent — takes a specific verified finding or a failing gate and makes the minimal code change to resolve it, then reruns the gate to prove it. Use to close a confirmed reviewer/gatekeeper finding. Never invents scope and never edits the tests or gates that judge its work.
sentinel
Security reviewer for a code change — finds vulnerabilities and attack surfaces (OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, authz). Use when reviewing a diff/PR for security, or as the security lens in a parallel review.
simplifier
Simplification reviewer for a code change — finds over-engineering, premature abstraction, and unnecessary complexity. Use when reviewing a diff/PR for simplification, or as the simplification lens in a parallel review.
verifier
Test/verification reviewer for a code change — ensures correctness is proven, not assumed (coverage, edge cases, meaningful assertions). Use when reviewing test quality for a diff/PR.
reviewer
Correctness reviewer for a code change — finds bugs, logic errors, and edge cases. Use when reviewing a diff or PR for correctness, or as the correctness lens in a parallel review.
reviewer
Code review agent. Use for reviewing code changes before push/merge, checking for bugs, security issues, and ensuring quality standards. Mandatory before any push.