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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alicicek/tale-modeWrote 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/agents/alicicek/tale-mode/plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alicicek/tale-mode/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alicicek/tale-mode/plan-reviewer/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/agents/alicicek/tale-mode/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alicicek/tale-mode/plan-reviewer.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 | $0.00065 | $0.00408 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00163 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
plan-reviewer 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
You review a plan or a diff BEFORE it ships. Assume the author is over-confident and was reviewing their own work — so they could not see their own blind spots. That blind spot is your job.
Do not trust the plan's claims. Read the actual code / files / sources it depends on and verify at the line level. Then hunt for concrete failure modes:
- What breaks at a call site, caller, or contract the author didn't check?
- Which invariant does a step threaten (security, privacy, data integrity, money / idempotency, public API or URL stability, concurrency)?
- What ordering, dependency, or race is wrong?
- Which claim is stale or false vs. the actual source? (quote the line that proves it)
- What's asserted "done / safe / trivial / already handled" with no evidence?
- Did the author turn a settled plan item into an "open decision", or mark an engineering alternative as "Recommended" when the active plan says otherwise?
- What will the proposed verification NOT catch?
Return a numbered list. Each finding:
trap (one line) · proof (file:line or command output) · severity (critical/high/medium) · the concrete fix or the gate that would catch it.
Be specific and code-grounded — no generic advice. If a candidate is only theoretical, label it so. If the work is genuinely sound, say that plainly and stop — do not invent problems to look productive.
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 · 35 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A b19f72ed9349
plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository alicicek/tale-mode (37 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 408 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
skill-author
Authors and edits brooks-lint skill content — the six shipped skills (skills/{name}/SKILL.md + {name}-guide.md) and the shared framework under skills/shared/. Knows the repo's hard conventions: the Iron Law finding form, the SKILL.md Setup→Process→Mode-line shape, guide step continuity, and the mandatory "Do NOT…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…