Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Dispatch panels of specialized subagents to review projects from multiple angles — expert audits, first-impression personas, task-completion flows, and pedantic nitpicks
npx claudepluginhub 2389-research/claude-plugins --plugin review-squadUse when a project needs multi-perspective review — pre-launch audit, post-refactor check, inherited codebase assessment, or periodic health check. Dispatches parallel expert reviewer agents with persona framing.
Use when you want to see a site through fresh eyes — how different types of people experience it for the first time. Dispatches agents with varying tech sophistication who land on the site cold and report confusion, friction, and first impressions.
Use when you want to verify a site works by having agents act as real users completing common tasks — browsing, subscribing, purchasing, searching. Each agent has a goal and clicks through the real flow using browser MCP tools.
Use when you want pedantic, nitpicky, opinionated feedback on a site or project — the kind of feedback you'd get from Hacker News commenters, typography snobs, grammar pedants, and standards purists. Finds the things that professional reviewers skip because they're "too minor."
Your project is about to ship. Instead of one reviewer catching what they catch, Review Squad dispatches a panel — security analyst, UX critic, performance specialist, pedantic nitpicker — each doing deep parallel analysis and reporting back.
/plugin marketplace add 2389-research/claude-plugins
/plugin install review-squad@2389-research
| Skill | What it does | When to use it |
|---|---|---|
review-squad:experts | Expert audit panel (SEO, a11y, security, perf, etc.) | Before launch — catch what you missed |
review-squad:normies | First-time visitors across a sophistication spectrum | When you can't tell if your site makes sense to outsiders |
review-squad:regulars | Task-oriented users verifying real flows work | Smoke test signup, checkout, search — the flows that matter |
review-squad:well-actually | Pedantic nitpickers finding what pros skip | Before posting to HN — find the nits before they do |
Expert audit before launch:
User: "Run a review-squad:experts audit on my site before we go live"
Claude: I'd suggest this panel for your site:
- Security analyst — auth flows, data handling, headers
- Performance specialist — load times, bundle size, caching
- SEO reviewer — meta tags, structured data, crawlability
- Accessibility auditor — screen readers, contrast, keyboard nav
Approve this panel, or swap anyone out?
[After approval, 4 agents dispatch in parallel]
[Each returns a focused report with specific findings]
[Consolidated into a single prioritized action list]
First impressions check:
User: "Use review-squad:normies to see if people can tell what my site is about"
Claude: I'll send these visitors to your site:
- Tech-savvy developer (comfortable with jargon)
- Non-technical manager (skims, needs clear value prop)
- Skeptical senior engineer (assumes everything is overhyped)
Each lands cold on your homepage and reports: what they think it does,
where they got confused, and whether they'd explore further.
Get roasted:
User: "Hit my site with review-squad:well-actually before I post it to HN"
Claude: Dispatching the pedants — typography snobs, grammar hawks,
standards purists, and "um actually" engineers. They'll find the
things professional reviewers skip because they're too polite.
Three of the four skills (normies, regulars, well-actually) use browser MCP tools, so you'll need a dev server running for those.
If Review Squad caught something your tests didn't, a ⭐ helps us know it's landing.
Built by 2389 · Part of the Claude Code plugin marketplace
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Based on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
7-phase frontend design review with accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA), responsive testing, visual polish. Use for PR reviews, UI audits, or encountering contrast issues, broken layouts, accessibility violations, inconsistent spacing, missing focus states.
Persona-based user testing agent that simulates realistic user interactions with web applications. Embodies different user archetypes (Boomers, Millennials, Gen Z, Gen Alpha) with authentic behaviors, timing patterns, and frustration triggers to identify UX issues before real users do.
5つの専門エージェント(backend-reviewer, frontend-reviewer, test-reviewer, security-reviewer, ux-reviewer)がチームでコードレビューするスキル。
Configurable code review with radical candor - choose between harsh direct feedback or constructive caring criticism. Features Technical.md for project standards, architectural context analysis, actionable fixes, decision register for tracking review decisions, seamless todo integration, and live browser QA via Chrome.
FAT Agent (Fix, Audit, Test) — a post-launch quality assurance skill that audits deployed websites for SEO, security, accessibility, performance, and content issues.
Project health and permission management, dev sessions, team updates with feedback triage, GitHub releases, multi-model brains trust, git workflows, UX audits, responsive layout testing, and browser automation.
MCP server for agent social media platform - enables AI agents to interact in team-based discussions
Iterative artifact refinement - hone any artifact or workspace over multiple rounds using criteria-driven judge feedback, runnable evaluators, and focused directional improvements
Agentic binary reverse engineering for ELF binaries on ARM64, ARMv7, x86_64 - structured analysis with radare2, Ghidra, GDB, and dynamic tracing
Take digital drugs that modify Claude's behavior with prompt injection. Effects activate immediately and persist across sessions.
Tiered-delegation task execution - a planner model (Sonnet) turns a spec into a contract that pins every cross-cutting decision plus self-contained sprints, a fast cheap model (Haiku) executes the bulk in parallel and self-verifies against the gate, and a scoped fix runs only on failure. Benchmarked ~64% cheaper than Opus building the same spec, at equal gate quality. General-purpose: code and non-code tasks.
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge.
Sign in to claim