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 BostonOrange/claude-code-framework --skill iterative-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/BostonOrange/claude-code-frameworkWrote 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/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/iterative-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/iterative-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/iterative-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/skills/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/iterative-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonorange/claude-code-framework/iterative-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 | $0.00048 | $0.01764 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00706 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00353 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00176 |
Grade A, and why
iterative-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 — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Iterative Review — The Feedback Loop
A sustained plan/code/review/re-code cycle on the current branch. Each pass:
- Plans (or replans) the change
- Implements the plan
- Spawns
review-coordinatorto synthesize parallel reviewer findings - Persists findings to
.claude/state/review-state-<branch>.json(append-only) - On the next pass, the coordinator sees prior findings and tracks fixed/unfixed/won't-fix
This is the framework's primary inner loop for non-trivial work. Use /team review for one-shot reviews; use /iterative-review when you expect multiple iterations.
Usage
/iterative-review — start or continue the loop on the current branch
/iterative-review --plan-only — produce/refresh the plan; do not implement or review
/iterative-review --review-only — skip planning + coding; just spawn coordinator
/iterative-review --reset — discard state for this branch and start fresh
/iterative-review --override [reason] — break glass; force APPROVE without review (tracked)
Break-glass override. For hotfixes when a real review would block a critical merge, --override tells review-coordinator to skip Steps 2–6, write a single APPROVE iteration to state with "override": "break-glass", and exit. The override is tracked in review-state-<branch>.json for retrospective analysis. The next iteration without --override runs the full review normally.
Equivalent: a comment containing break glass in the user's prompt to the skill triggers the same path. Use sparingly; review-coordinator's verdict rubric already biases toward APPROVE for legitimate cases.
State Files
All state lives in .claude/state/ (gitignored). Per branch:
| File | Purpose | Lifecycle |
|---|---|---|
plan-<branch>.md |
The current implementation plan | Rewritten on --plan-only |
review-context-<branch>.md |
Shared context every sub-reviewer reads | Rewritten by coordinator each iteration |
review-state-<branch>.json |
Append-only findings history | Coordinator appends, never rewrites |
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 · 154 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 6c183651ec8d
iterative-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository BostonOrange/claude-code-framework (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,764 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…