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.
npx skills add 45ck/skill-harness --skill multi-agent-workflow-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/45ck/skill-harnessWrote 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/skills/45ck/skill-harness/multi-agent-workflow-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/45ck/skill-harness/multi-agent-workflow-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/45ck/skill-harness/multi-agent-workflow-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00031 | $0.00234 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00117 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00047 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
multi-agent-workflow-reviewer 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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Multi-Agent Workflow Reviewer
Use this skill when work crosses real boundaries that one agent loadout should not own alone.
Review
- Name the reason multiple agents are needed.
- Assign each agent an owned outcome, not just a topic.
- Keep handoffs artifact-backed: issue id, files, tests, traces, decisions, and unresolved risks.
- Define conflict resolution when agents disagree.
- Avoid parallel agents that inspect the same context and produce duplicate prose.
- Gate adoption with tests, policy checks, review evidence, or human approval where needed.
Useful Split Patterns
- research/model agent then implementation agent
- implementation agent then adversarial reviewer
- security reviewer beside product or architecture owner
- QA evidence collector then demo/story packager
- workflow engineer then delivery manager for closeout
Output
Workflow Goal
Why Multiple Agents
Agent Responsibilities
Handoff Artifacts
Conflict Rules
Evidence Gates
Coordination Risks
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 36 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A c4220319e3e2
multi-agent-workflow-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository 45ck/skill-harness (15 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 234 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 skills, from other repositories
do-it-architecture
Use when authority, ownership, contracts, dependency boundaries, migration, recovery, or structural deletion can change a design.
do-it-code-quality
Use when designing, changing, or debugging code to locate causal ownership and close the affected behavior.
do-it-core
Use when repository work needs a shared baseline for intent, facts, causal changes, and honest evidence.
do-it-decide
Use when uncertainty about a choice, plan, dependency, or handoff could materially change what gets built.
do-it-review
Use to assess requirements and implementation quality independently, or to resolve a batch of review findings.
do-it-skill-authoring
Use when creating or revising a do-it skill so its trigger and unique professional judgment are useful without prescribing ceremony.