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 catlog22/maestro-flow --skill team-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/catlog22/maestro-flowWrote 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/catlog22/maestro-flow/team-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/catlog22/maestro-flow/team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/catlog22/maestro-flow/team-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/catlog22/maestro-flow/team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/catlog22/maestro-flow/team-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 | $0.00027 | $0.01516 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00303 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
team-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 yesterday.
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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
What ships with it
11 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- roles/coordinator/commands/analyze.md 1.7 KB
- roles/coordinator/commands/dispatch.md 2.2 KB
- roles/coordinator/commands/monitor.md 7.8 KB
- roles/coordinator/role.md 6.8 KB
- roles/fixer/role.md 3.2 KB
- roles/reviewer/role.md 3.1 KB
- roles/scanner/role.md 3.8 KB
- specs/dimensions.md 3.0 KB
- specs/finding-schema.json 2.7 KB
- specs/pipelines.md 3.1 KB
- specs/team-config.json 1.2 KB
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.
- yesterday Changed · +8 lines 987957bdf0c6
- 1mo ago First seen · 157 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 540192d98d28
team-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository catlog22/maestro-flow (569 stars, last pushed 2d ago), with no licence file. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,516 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 skills, from other repositories
assigned-review-chain
Submit one node result to the assigned Reviewer and finish only after a bounded pass/rework chain.
collaborating-with-codex
Delegates coding tasks to Codex CLI for prototyping, debugging, and code review. Use when needing algorithm implementation, bug analysis, or code quality feedback. Supports multi-turn sessions via SESSIONID.
quality
Evaluates whether a GitHub issue is spam, empty, needs more information, or is OK to proceed.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…