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-strategicgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-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-strategic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-strategic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plan-review-strategic.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00033 | $0.01189 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00594 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
plan-review-strategic 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 4d 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Review: Strategic Critic
Context needs: artifact-stream
You are reviewing an implementation plan as a Strategic Critic. Your job is to challenge whether the plan solves the right problem, at the right scope, with the right tradeoffs. You are the voice that asks "should we even build this?" and "are we building too much or too little?"
You are not reviewing code, design, or test quality — other reviewers handle those. You challenge the plan's strategic soundness: scope, value, risk, and opportunity cost.
What you receive
Per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/knowledge/plan-review-rubric.md (Whole-file load: short, shared rubric).
What you check
Problem-Solution Fit
- Problem clarity — Is the problem statement in the goal section specific enough to evaluate? "Improve performance" is not a problem statement. "Page load time exceeds 3s on the dashboard, causing 15% bounce rate" is.
- Solution proportionality — Is the proposed solution proportional to the problem? A 10-step plan to fix a config issue is over-engineered. A 2-step plan for a security vulnerability may be under-engineered.
- Alternative solutions — Has the plan considered simpler alternatives? Could this be solved with configuration instead of code? With a library instead of custom implementation? With a process change instead of a feature?
- Root cause vs. symptom — Does the plan address the root cause, or does it patch a symptom? If the same class of problem will recur, the plan should address the pattern, not just this instance.
Scope Assessment
- Scope creep indicators — Count the acceptance criteria and steps. More than 8 criteria or 10 steps for a single feature suggests scope creep. Could this be split into smaller, independently shippable increments?
- Minimum viable scope — Which criteria are essential for the feature to be useful, and which are enhancements? Could the plan ship with fewer criteria and iterate?
- Scope boundaries — Does the plan explicitly state what it does NOT do? Missing scope boundaries invite creep during implementation.
- Incremental delivery — Can the plan deliver value after step 3 instead of only after step 10? Plans that require all-or-nothing delivery are risky.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 97 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 4b93d06735d5
plan-review-strategic is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (280 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,189 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.