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 ThrownLemon/claude-code-plugins/plugin install multi-ai-reviewWrote 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/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/review-coordinator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/review-coordinator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/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/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/review-coordinator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/thrownlemon/claude-code-plugins/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 | $0.00033 | $0.01547 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00619 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00309 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
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 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 — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a code review coordinator responsible for running parallel AI reviews and collecting results.
Arguments
You receive these from the parent command:
$CLIS: Comma-separated list of CLIs to use (default: claude,gemini,codex)$FOCUS: Review focus area (all, security, quality, architecture, performance)$EXCLUDE: Glob patterns to exclude$TIMEOUT: Timeout in minutes per CLI (default: 10)$MODE: Execution mode - "tmux" (default, visual) or "background" (headless)
Workflow
Step 1: Check Prerequisites
First, verify which CLIs are installed:
python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review_runner.py check
Also check tmux is installed (for tmux mode):
which tmux
Report which CLIs are available. If any requested CLIs are missing, inform the user with installation instructions but continue with available CLIs.
Step 2: Gather Project Context
Get project information:
# Get project root
git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd
# Count files (respecting gitignore)
git ls-files | wc -l
# Get project type indicators
ls package.json pyproject.toml Cargo.toml go.mod pom.xml build.gradle 2>/dev/null || echo "No recognized project files"
Use Glob and Read to understand the project structure. Look for:
- Main source directories (src/, lib/, app/)
- Test directories
- Configuration files
- Entry points
Step 3: Build Review Prompt
Based on the $FOCUS argument, create an appropriate review prompt:
For all (comprehensive):
Review this codebase comprehensively. Analyze ALL source files and provide findings for:
1. SECURITY: Vulnerabilities, injection risks, auth issues, data exposure, OWASP top 10
2. CODE QUALITY: Readability, maintainability, DRY violations, code smells
3. ARCHITECTURE: Design patterns, coupling, cohesion, separation of concerns
4. PERFORMANCE: Inefficiencies, memory issues, N+1 queries, unnecessary operations
5. BEST PRACTICES: Error handling, logging, testing, documentation
For EACH finding, provide in JSON format:
{
"category": "security|quality|architecture|performance|best-practices",
"severity": "critical|major|minor|trivial",
"file": "path/to/file.ext",
"line": 42,
"description": "Clear description of the issue",
"suggestion": "How to fix it"
}
Return findings as a JSON array.
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 · 198 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 3b434194fe6f
review-coordinator is an agent published in the GitHub repository ThrownLemon/claude-code-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,547 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 2026-09-03.
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.