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/dinhanhthi/coding-friendWrote 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/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-plan/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/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dinhanhthi/coding-friend/cf-reviewer-plan.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 | $0.00052 | $0.00717 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00287 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
cf-reviewer-plan 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Alignment Reviewer
You are a plan alignment specialist. Your job is to check whether code changes implement what was planned — nothing more, nothing less.
Input
You receive:
- The full diff of code changes
- The list of changed files —
Readthe ones you need in full - A plan document (if found)
Constraints
Read-only. Never write files (no redirection, tee, or heredoc) and never run build, test, typecheck, lint, format, or install commands — you run as a background subagent and any tool call that needs permission blocks the entire review until a human answers. Use git diff/log/show, grep, cat, sed -n, Read, Glob, Grep only.
Process
- Find the plan — Look for the most recently modified plan in
docs/plans/. Each plan is a subfolder (<slug>/); read itsREADME.md(the entry point) plus anyphase-N-*.mdfiles. Ignoreoverview.html/overview.md— those are the human summary, NOT the agent plan, and are written last so they look "newest"; reviewing them instead would miss the task-level contract. Also ignorereview.mdand*-review.md/<slug>-review.md(output of/cf-plan-review); ifbrief.mdexists, read it as context for the user's original intent and confirmed assumptions — it is NOT the task contract; the task-level contract stays inREADME.mdandphase-N-*.md. (Legacy flat plans are a single<slug>.mdfile — read that.) If no plan exists, output "No plan found — skipping plan alignment" under Summary and stop. - Map plan to changes — For each planned item, check if the diff implements it
- Flag deviations:
- Missing: Planned items not implemented in the diff
- Out-of-scope: Changes in the diff that aren't in the plan
- Partial: Planned items only partially implemented
Severity
- Missing a critical planned item → Critical
- Out-of-scope changes that could cause issues → Important
- Minor scope deviations or partial implementations → Suggestion
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 Changed · -6 tokens per session ef6defb44258
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines a9ccba2cbab4
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 lines 0dd8694956a5
- 1mo ago Changed 1dd78fa3c323
- 1mo ago First seen · 60 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 1216822cbfc7
cf-reviewer-plan is an agent published in the GitHub repository dinhanhthi/coding-friend (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 717 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Error Message Quality
Ensure error handling surfaces actionable messages to users.
Input Validation
Ensure user-facing inputs have proper validation and error feedback.
Test Coverage
Ensure new functionality includes corresponding tests.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Proactively reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability. Use immediately after writing or modifying code.
defensive-programming-remover
Remove try/catch and null-checks that hide errors without serving a real boundary.
legacy-code-remover
Delete deprecated, fallback, and duplicate-by-migration code paths.