Continuous-Claude-v3 is a Claude Code development environment that preserves working context between sessions, coordinates specialized agents, and stores project knowledge through ledgers, handoffs, and analysis tools. It is for people using Claude Code on ongoing or complex software work. Its catalogue entries are the skills, agents, hooks, plugin, and setting that provide its workflows and orchestration.
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 parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3Wrote 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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
- 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 | $0.00013 | $0.01231 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00616 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00123 |
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 9d 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 — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review - Code Review Workflow
Multi-perspective code review with parallel specialists.
When to Use
- "Review this code"
- "Review my PR"
- "Check this before I merge"
- "Get feedback on implementation"
- Before merging significant changes
- Quality gates
Workflow Overview
┌──────────┐
│ critic │ ─┐
│ (code) │ │
└──────────┘ │
│
┌──────────┐ │ ┌──────────────┐
│plan-reviewer│ ─┼────▶ │ review-agent │
│ (plan) │ │ │ (synthesis) │
└──────────┘ │ └──────────────┘
│
┌──────────┐ │
│plan-reviewer│ ─┘
│ (change) │
└──────────┘
Parallel Sequential
perspectives synthesis
Agent Sequence
| # | Agent | Focus | Execution |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | critic | Code quality, patterns, readability | Parallel |
| 1 | plan-reviewer | Architecture, plan adherence | Parallel |
| 1 | plan-reviewer | Change impact, risk assessment | Parallel |
| 2 | review-agent | Synthesize all reviews, final verdict | After 1 |
Review Perspectives
- critic: Is this good code? (Style, patterns, readability)
- plan-reviewer: Does this match the design? (Architecture, plan)
- plan-reviewer: Is this change safe? (Risk, impact, regressions)
- review-agent: Overall assessment and recommendations
Execution
Phase 1: Parallel Reviews
# Code quality review
Task(
subagent_type="critic",
prompt="""
Review code quality: [SCOPE]
Evaluate:
- Code style and consistency
- Design patterns used
- Readability and maintainability
- Error handling
- Test coverage
Output: List of issues with severity (critical/major/minor)
""",
run_in_background=true
)
# Architecture review
Task(
subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
prompt="""
Review architecture alignment: [SCOPE]
Check:
- Follows established patterns
- Matches implementation plan (if exists)
- Consistent with system design
- No architectural violations
Output: Alignment assessment with concerns
""",
run_in_background=true
)
# Change impact review
Task(
subagent_type="plan-reviewer",
prompt="""
Review change impact: [SCOPE]
Assess:
- Risk level of changes
- Affected systems/components
- Backward compatibility
- Potential regressions
- Security implications
Output: Risk assessment with recommendations
""",
run_in_background=true
)
# Wait for all parallel reviews
[Check TaskOutput for all three]
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 216 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A a5b93725181c
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 (3,938 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,231 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-arch
Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use…
review-impl
Review implementation changes for a given task against architectural standards. Use when reviewing a PR, evaluating recently committed code, assessing whether implementation changes are correct and architecturally sound, or when asked to 'review my changes', 'check this implementation', 'review what I built', 'is this…
babysit-pr
Resolve reviewer comments on a pull request or pasted feedback using a six-step evidence-grounded protocol. Use when asked to resolve review feedback, address reviewer comments, process PR comments, triage review feedback, apply review suggestions, handle code review feedback, decide which review comments to accept or…
verify-impl
Forensic audit of an implementation against its authoritative specification. Use whenever a specification document and an implementation are both in scope and the user asks any conformance question - even when not phrased explicitly: 'does this code match the spec', 'verify this implementation', 'check spec…
code-review
Use when you want a thorough code review of files, changes, or the entire project before shipping.
refactoring-and-tech-debt
Use when tracking tech debt across a codebase, when planning a refactor, when deciding whether to rewrite vs incrementally improve, when a workaround has appeared in three places, or when a refactor PR is about to be combined with feature work.