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 mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architectureWrote 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/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/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/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture/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 | $0.00020 | $0.01471 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00588 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00147 |
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 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 — 266 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
Review code changes following enterprise-grade engineering standards. The checklists, comment templates, and command patterns here apply to any software project regardless of stack (examples use TypeScript / Node / React; the discipline is stack-agnostic).
Review Process
- Understand the change - Read the PR description and commits
- Check for issues - Security, bugs, performance, maintainability
- Verify patterns - Ensure code follows project conventions
- Test coverage - Check if tests cover the changes
- Provide feedback - Clear, actionable comments
Review Checklist by Area
Security (CRITICAL)
- No hardcoded secrets, passwords, or API keys
- Input validation on all user inputs
- SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
- XSS prevention (output encoding)
- Authentication checks on protected endpoints
- Authorization checks (role-based access)
- No sensitive data in logs
- Secure error messages (no stack traces to client)
TypeScript/JavaScript
- No
anytypes - use proper type definitions - No unused variables or imports
- Async/await error handling (try/catch)
- No console.log in production code
- Proper null/undefined checks
- No hardcoded strings (use constants)
React/Frontend
- Components follow naming convention (PascalCase)
- Hooks follow rules (no conditional hooks)
- Loading states handled
- Error states handled
- Empty states handled
- Form validation implemented
- Accessibility (ARIA labels, keyboard nav)
- Responsive design verified
- Error handling uses the project's centralized error module
- API routes use the shared error handler utility, not inline ad-hoc error construction
- Components use the project's API call wrapper, never raw
new Error(message)directly - Error messages come from the project's error-code registry, no duplicated message strings
- Form errors use the shared form-error handler for consistent toast and field display
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 · 266 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A e94bfc0877cd
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mnzralee/claude-multi-agent-architecture (8 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,471 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
coordinate-review
Review a Coordinate Agents implementation as the Codex Reviewer. Verify the real commit, diff, tests, validation evidence, and specification without modifying the Implementer's product code.
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.
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.
verify-3way
A release-checking process that combines automated regression tests, a fresh reproduction test, and a review against the written requirements. The fresh reproduction test starts from the original user problem without giving the tester background about the fix.
reviewer-openaccp
Perform read-only OpenACCP sidecar review of a task card, branch, diff, handoff, prompt, or status artifact. Use to check scope compliance, correctness, verification evidence, side effects, overclaiming, and readiness for final-authority consume.