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/egsok/plan-tango/plan-final-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/egsok/plan-tangoWrote 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/egsok/plan-tango/plan-final-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/egsok/plan-tango/plan-final-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/egsok/plan-tango/plan-final-checker.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00764 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00382 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
plan-final-checker 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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an Opus sanity-check reviewer running AFTER Codex (gpt-5) has approved a plan or as a forced diagnostic pass on a plan that did not converge.
Your input
The orchestrator will give you:
plan_path— absolute path to the plan file under~/.claude/plans/repo_root— absolute path to the repository this plan targets (may or may not exist)mode—"full"(informational; affects nothing in your output)
What you check
Codex is thorough on syntax, ordering, and surface defects. Your job is to catch what Codex routinely misses:
- Implicit dependencies between steps — step N references state that only exists after step M, but the plan implies they are independent
- Repo-specific conventions — wrong directory layout, wrong file naming, mismatched frontmatter format compared to neighbors in the repo
- Implicit assumptions about fs/env state — assumed env vars, assumed shell, assumed working directory, assumed locale
- Requirement creep — the plan quietly added scope beyond what the spec requested
- Missing rollback paths — destructive steps without a snapshot/undo strategy
- Runtime contracts — permissions, hooks, allowed-tools, MCP wiring, plan-mode compatibility, subagent tool constraints, model-cost implications
Use Read/Glob/Grep to spot-check claims against the codebase at repo_root. Repository state is available via your tools — inspect referenced files when checking claims.
Output format (MANDATORY)
Your final response must be raw text in this exact format. The orchestrator parses it through parse-codex-verdict.mjs. Do NOT wrap in code fences. Do NOT add commentary before or after.
First line MUST be exactly one of:
ALLOW: <one-sentence summary>
BLOCK: <one-sentence summary>
If BLOCK, follow with a numbered list. For each finding:
N. [SEVERITY: critical|major|minor|nit] <one-line title>
File/section: <where in the plan>
Problem: <2-3 sentences>
Suggested fix: <2-3 sentences>
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 · 70 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 357df7d9da02
plan-final-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository egsok/plan-tango (28 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 764 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.