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 hogancv/coordinate-agents --skill coordinate-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hogancv/coordinate-agentsWrote 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/hogancv/coordinate-agents/coordinate-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hogancv/coordinate-agents/coordinate-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hogancv/coordinate-agents/coordinate-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/hogancv/coordinate-agents/coordinate-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hogancv/coordinate-agents/coordinate-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00036 | $0.00478 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00191 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
coordinate-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.
What it actually says
Coordinate Review
Use coordinate_agents_task_inspect and
coordinate_agents_task_review for normal Plugin review operations. The
Plugin bundles the Runtime and does not require a global coordinate-agents
command. If MCP is unavailable, or the user explicitly requests debugging,
let <skill-dir> be the absolute directory containing this loaded SKILL.md:
node "<skill-dir>/../coordinate-agents/scripts/runtime-entry.mjs" ...
Review only observable evidence tied to the current Task and repository:
- Read
coordinate_agents_task_inspectand the approved specification. - Verify the implementation commit exists and inspect its diff.
- Check validation evidence for the current commit. Re-run relevant tests when evidence is missing, stale, from a different environment, or leaves a concrete doubt; independently verify high-risk changes when warranted.
- Compare every acceptance criterion and negative control.
- Return exactly one decision:
REVIEW_APPROVEDorCHANGES_REQUESTED. - Record that decision through the MCP Task API; never edit a task JSON file or manually send a Bus message. Only when MCP is unavailable, or for explicit debugging, use this fallback syntax:
node "<skill-dir>/../coordinate-agents/scripts/runtime-entry.mjs" task review \
--root "<repository>" --id task-... --decision REVIEW_APPROVED --json
For changes, include concrete feedback. The Runtime preserves it and the next
explicit task dispatch includes it in the new IMPLEMENT activation. In an
implementation workflow, the coordinator continues authorized rework without
asking again; a review-only request ends after the recorded review. When
the recorded Session is healthy, that activation reuses the same
ExecutionSession; review feedback is written into the existing PTY context.
Do not use Codex App Terminal UI automation to reach the Implementer.
The Reviewer does not edit product source, tests, or build configuration. It does not merge, tag, push, publish, or pass the human release gate.
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 Changed · +4 lines aeb19aafcc0d
- 2mo ago First seen · 45 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 2b7217a6dc1b
coordinate-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hogancv/coordinate-agents (107 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 478 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 skills, from other repositories
review
Code review skill covering security, correctness, type safety, and maintainability for any software project.
deliberated-review
Review code with multiple specialist subagents, then use gemot to find where they disagree and why. Requires gemot MCP server configured.
feature-dev
A general workflow for developing a software feature, from exploring the existing project through planning, implementation, independent review, and final owner acceptance. It adapts the amount of work to the feature's size and risk.
tech-debt-audit
Audits architectural choices for hidden scalability bottlenecks and operational tech debt.
review-board
Run the multi-wave Software Engineering Review Board (SERB) over a proposed plan before execution. A read-only board of specialist agents gathers ground truth, critiques from architecture/testing/security/devops/quality lenses, then synthesizes a refined, executable plan with a go/no-go. Use for high-stakes or…
senior-review
A pre-merge review process that sends the same code change to two independent reviewers with different focuses, then combines their findings into one decision. One checks maintainability and change discipline; the other checks affected areas, edge cases, and regression risk.