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 closedloop-ai/claude-plugins --skill spawn-reviewersgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/closedloop-ai/claude-pluginsWrote 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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/spawn-reviewers)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/spawn-reviewers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/spawn-reviewers/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/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/spawn-reviewers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/closedloop-ai/claude-plugins/spawn-reviewers.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Rogue Agent · line 3 Skill modifies its own code, configuration, or behavior at runtime. Self-modification enables an agent to escalate privileges, disable safety constraints, or install persistent backdoors.Fix: Prevent the skill from modifying its own code, SKILL.md, or configuration files. Treat skill files as read-only at runtime.
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 | $0.00191 | $0.10736 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00076 | $0.04294 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.02147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.01074 |
Grade A, and why
spawn-reviewers 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 28d 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 — 494 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Fleet Dispatch (stage_20_spawn_reviewers)
This skill is the canonical reviewer-fleet dispatcher for /code-review at stage_20_spawn_reviewers. It is split out of commands/start.md so the orchestration spine stays lean; the orchestrator invokes it when the walker reaches stage_20_spawn_reviewers. The content below is authoritative for both MODE=local and MODE=github, with mode-specific Task scheduling: GitHub standard flow dispatches reviewers synchronously, while local standard flow preserves parallel background dispatch plus blocking collection.
The verifier fleet (stage_23) and the PLN-725 single-agent dispatch (stage_11 / stage_15) are not in this skill — they are owned by the code-review:verify-findings and code-review:singleton-dispatch skills respectively.
Reviewer Fleet (stage_20_spawn_reviewers)
This stage runs when the walker reaches stage_20.
PLN-725 Phase 8 — spawn-spec consumption (preferred path). Before walking the static tables below, Read <CR_DIR>/spawn.json (spec section). If the file exists and arbitrate_status != "fallback", dispatch one Task per entry in agents[], using the descriptor fields directly:
agent_id→ orchestrator-assigned ID; agent writes to<CR_DIR>/agent_{agent_id}.json.model→ resolved per-agent model string (already accounts for BHA test-only routing and spawn.json.route overrides — do not re-derive).partitioned: true+partition_id→ patches file ispatches_p{partition_id}.txt; use the partition'sfiles[]frompartitions.jsonfor<files_assigned>.partitioned: false→ patches file ispatches_all.txt;<files_assigned>is the fullfiles_to_reviewlist.subagent_typeper descriptor: usecode-review:code-review-worker-graphwhenreviewer ∈ {bug_hunter_b, impact, design_critic}(or the fast-path agent); usecode-review:code-review-workerfor every other descriptor. See the "Agent type" rule above. Pass the resolvedCODE_INTEL_ALLOWEDandCODE_INTEL_REQUIRE_ROOT_ARGinto the BHB / Impact / Design Critic / fast-path prompts.- Prompt-suffix dispatch is two-level:
- When
source == "core", branch on thereviewerfield to select the suffix:bug_hunter_a→ BHA,bug_hunter_b→ BHB,unified_auditor→ Auditor,impact→ Impact Analyzer,design_critic→ Design Critic. (All five roles sharesource: "core", sosourcealone is not enough.)impactonly appears inagents[]when invocation depth isdeepAND signal extraction emittedexported_symbol_changeorsymbol_deletion;design_criticappears inagents[]on everydeepreview (an always-on conditional core reviewer). Both are code-intelligence-aware:impactanddesign_criticeach load the code-intelligence protocol, so spawn both ascode-review:code-review-worker-graphand substitute the resolvedCODE_INTEL_ALLOWEDandCODE_INTEL_REQUIRE_ROOT_ARGinto their suffixes. - When
sourceis"rule"or"critic"→ Domain Critic suffix (thereviewerfield carries the critic name for the{critic_name}prompt slot)."rule"means the entry came from a deterministically matchedcritic-gates.jsoncoverage[]rule (including migrated legacymoduleCritics[]);"critic"means the entry was LLM-proposed bycoverage_critic. Both spawn asdomain_<N>with sonnet. - When
source == "fast_path"→ Fast Path suffix (only emitted on the fast-path branch; mutually exclusive with the bucket walk).
- When
spec.fast_path: true→ spec emits exactly one agent (agent_id: "fast"); skip the standard-flow tables and use the Fast Path suffix below.spec.gated_by_verify: true→ a BLOCKING verify verdict from stage_15c fired (the canonical finding already lives inagent_coverage-verify-blocking.json). The spec has already been sanitized — onlysource: "core"agents will be present inagents[]; rule/critic-source reviewers were moved toskipped[]withreason: "gated_by_verify". Spawn the (sanitized) spec as-is and surface a one-line warning in the present step that arbitration was bypassed.spec.skipped[]→ reviewers the spec deliberately did not spawn (e.g.test_qualitydeferred to PLN-723;bug_hunter_askipped because all files cached). Do not re-add them.
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.
- 28d ago Changed · +13 lines ab9231541915
- 1mo ago Changed · +15 lines · +7 tokens per session 6a0995af7de0
- 1mo ago Changed · +8 lines · +2 tokens per session 94029576394a
- 1mo ago First seen · 458 lines · 182 tokens per session scan A ff7b1584df07
spawn-reviewers is a skill published in the GitHub repository closedloop-ai/claude-plugins (122 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 191 tokens to every session and 10,736 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 skills, from other repositories
opencode
Delegate coding to OpenCode CLI (features, PR review).
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
code-review-excellence
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
github
GitHub via gh CLI: PRs, issues, reviews, repos, auth.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
gitnexus-explorer
Serve an interactive codebase knowledge graph web UI.