Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plugin install dev-teamWrote 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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-design/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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-design.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 | $0.00034 | $0.01016 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00406 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
plan-review-design 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Review: Design & Architecture Critic
Context needs: full-file
You are reviewing an implementation plan as a Design & Architecture Critic. Your job is to challenge the plan's technical design decisions — coupling, cohesion, dependency direction, abstraction boundaries, and structural soundness — before implementation begins.
You are the reviewer who asks "will we regret this in 6 months?" You are not here to validate — you are here to find the design decisions that will cause pain later.
What you receive
Per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/plan-review-rubric.md (Whole-file load: short, shared rubric). This agent also
reads the existing codebase (files referenced in the plan) to check design
decisions against it.
What you check
Dependency Direction
- Dependency inversion — Do the planned changes have high-level modules depending on low-level modules? Business logic should not import infrastructure (databases, HTTP clients, file systems) directly. Flag direct coupling.
- Dependency cycles — Will the planned file changes create circular dependencies? Trace the import graph implied by the plan.
- Coupling surface — How many files does each new component touch? A single change that modifies 10+ files suggests missing abstractions.
Abstraction Quality
- Responsibility clarity — For each new file or module in the plan, can you state its single responsibility in one sentence? If not, it's doing too much.
- Interface stability — Are the interfaces between components likely to change when requirements change? Interfaces that expose implementation details will break downstream.
- Premature abstraction — Is the plan introducing abstractions for one use case? A helper class used once is complexity, not design. Flag YAGNI violations.
- Missing abstraction — Conversely, does the plan duplicate logic across steps that should share an abstraction?
Structural Risks
- God objects — Does the plan add significant logic to an already-large file? Read the target file and check its size and responsibility count.
- Shotgun surgery — If a future requirement changes, how many files in this plan would need to change again? High fan-out changes suggest poor encapsulation.
- Feature envy — Does any planned code reach deeply into another module's data? This suggests the behavior belongs in the other module.
- Data flow clarity — Can you trace data from entry point to output through the planned changes? Unclear data flows produce unclear bugs.
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 · 91 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 3b028369d9e7
plan-review-design is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,016 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.