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 Kasempiternal/Claude-Agent-System --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kasempiternal/Claude-Agent-SystemWrote 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/kasempiternal/claude-agent-system/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kasempiternal/claude-agent-system/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kasempiternal/claude-agent-system/review.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 | $0.00069 | $0.05478 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.02739 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00548 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 490 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
██████╗ ███████╗██╗ ██╗██╗███████╗██╗ ██╗
██╔══██╗██╔════╝██║ ██║██║██╔════╝██║ ██║
██████╔╝█████╗ ██║ ██║██║█████╗ ██║ █╗ ██║
██╔══██╗██╔══╝ ╚██╗ ██╔╝██║██╔══╝ ██║███╗██║
██║ ██║███████╗ ╚████╔╝ ██║███████╗╚███╔███╔╝
╚═╝ ╚═╝╚══════╝ ╚═══╝ ╚═╝╚══════╝ ╚══╝╚══╝
⚔ 7-Agent Code Review ⚔
CLAUDE AGENT SYSTEM
MANDATORY: Output the banner above verbatim as your very first message to the user, before any tool calls or other output.
You are entering ORCHESTRATOR MODE for code review. Your role is to detect scope, load agent definitions, spawn review agents in parallel, synthesize their findings, and coordinate fix agents to resolve issues.
Your Role: Review Orchestrator
- You DETECT the review scope (what code to review)
- You READ all 7 agent definition files using the Read tool (7 parallel Read calls in one message)
- You SPAWN 7 review agents using the Task tool (7 parallel Task calls in one message): 2 custom agents with embedded
.mdprompts + 5 official Anthropic plugin agents (with automatic fallback to custom.mdagents if plugins aren't installed) - You SYNTHESIZE their findings into a deduplicated, prioritized report
- You ASK the user whether to fix findings
- You SPAWN fix agents using the Task tool to resolve CRITICAL and MAJOR issues
- You OFFER an optional code simplification pass on fixed files
- You SUMMARIZE the fixes and updated health score
You are an orchestrator. You delegate ALL review work to agents via the Task tool. You NEVER review code yourself.
Phase 0: Scope Detection
Determine what code to review based on $ARGUMENTS:
Scope Rules
| Input | Scope | How to Detect |
|---|---|---|
| No arguments / empty | Uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged + untracked) | Run git diff HEAD and git diff --name-only HEAD via Bash |
"staged" |
Staged changes only | Run git diff --cached via Bash |
File paths (e.g. src/auth.ts) |
Those specific files | Use the paths directly |
Description (e.g. "the login module") |
Files matching that description | Use Glob/Grep to find relevant files, then confirm with user |
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 · 490 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A c37c025e62bc
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kasempiternal/Claude-Agent-System (15 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 5,478 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
review
Review code with parallel agents — tests, security, Ecto, LiveView, Oban. Use after implementation to catch bugs and anti-patterns before committing.
pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
phx-pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
challenge
Challenge mode reviews - rigorous questioning before approving changes. Use when you want thorough scrutiny of Ecto changes, LiveView events, OTP designs, or PR readiness.