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 agentmods add agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-designgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-teamWhat 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 | $0.00034 | $0.01016 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 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 2d 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.
- 2d 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 (277 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,016 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.