Project Starter is a workflow plugin that equips coding agents with specialized subagents, reusable skills, commands, hooks, and output styles for software projects. It is for developers who want structured assistance with tasks such as planning, debugging, code review, security, and automation across several coding-agent platforms. Catalogue add-ons are components of its own workflow.
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/CloudAI-X/claude-workflow-v2Wrote 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/commands/cloudai-x/claude-workflow-v2/parallel-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/cloudai-x/claude-workflow-v2/parallel-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cloudai-x/claude-workflow-v2/parallel-review/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/commands/cloudai-x/claude-workflow-v2/parallel-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/cloudai-x/claude-workflow-v2/parallel-review.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00646 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00258 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
parallel-review 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Parallel Code Review
Review $ARGUMENTS using parallel subagents for maximum speed.
Process
- Parse Targets: Split arguments into independent review targets
- Spawn Parallel Reviewers: Launch one subagent per target
- Collect Results: Each subagent returns its review automatically on completion
- Synthesize: Merge findings into prioritized report
Execution Pattern
CRITICAL: Launch ALL Task calls in a SINGLE message for true parallelism.
For each independent target, spawn a subagent with run_in_background: true:
I'm launching N parallel code reviewers:
[Task 1]
description: "Review [target 1]"
prompt: "You are a code reviewer. Analyze [target 1] for:
- Code quality and best practices
- Potential bugs and edge cases
- Security vulnerabilities
- Performance issues
- Test coverage gaps
Provide findings with file:line references and severity levels."
run_in_background: true
[Task 2]
description: "Review [target 2]"
prompt: "You are a code reviewer. Analyze [target 2] for..."
run_in_background: true
[Task 3]
description: "Review [target 3]"
prompt: "You are a code reviewer. Analyze [target 3] for..."
run_in_background: true
Each subagent returns its result automatically when it completes — there is no separate retrieval step. Read each review as it returns.
Output Format
## Parallel Review Results
### Summary
- **Targets reviewed**: N
- **Total findings**: X
- **Critical issues**: Y
- **Execution time**: ~Zs (parallel)
### [Target 1] Findings
#### Critical
- [Issue] at file:line - [Description]
#### Warnings
- [Issue] at file:line - [Description]
#### Suggestions
- [Improvement] at file:line - [Description]
### [Target 2] Findings
...
### Combined Priority List
1. **Critical** - [Target X] - [Issue description]
2. **Critical** - [Target Y] - [Issue description]
3. **High** - [Target Z] - [Issue description]
...
### Recommended Actions
1. Fix critical issues in [Target X] first
2. Address security concerns in [Target Y]
3. Consider performance optimizations in [Target Z]
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 · 110 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 8fa1994d7318
parallel-review is a command published in the GitHub repository CloudAI-X/claude-workflow-v2 (1,420 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 646 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 commands, from other repositories
refactor-clean
Refactor provided code for cleanliness, maintainability, and alignment with SOLID principles and modern best practices — no over-engineering.
prp-commit
Quick commit with natural language file targeting: describe what to commit in plain English.
pm-review
Review local git diff with reasoning + snippets; cross-check; dispose findings into the rules library.
code-simplify
A code-review command that simplifies recently changed code or another chosen scope while preserving its behavior.
review
A command that reviews code changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
review-code
Read ALL memory bank code rules + best practices, check the files that changed, and APPLY fixes so they adhere. The active counterpart to /scan (which is read-only). Use after an AI session, before commit, to make changed files compliant.