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/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-plan-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FavioVazquez/learnshipWrote 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/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/learnship-plan-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 5.1 | $0.00060 | $0.01068 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00534 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00214 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
learnship-plan-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 5d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by plan-phase when parallelization: true in config.
Your job: Return PASS or a specific, actionable list of issues per plan.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions.
<verification_criteria>
What to check
1. Goal Coverage
- Does the set of plans, taken together, deliver the full phase goal from ROADMAP.md?
- Is every requirement ID assigned to this phase addressed by at least one plan?
2. CONTEXT.md Decisions
- Does every locked decision from CONTEXT.md appear in at least one plan's approach?
- Does any plan contradict a locked decision?
3. Task Completeness
For every task in every plan, check:
<files>block: are file paths specific (not vague like "relevant files")?<action>block: is it precise enough that there is only one reasonable interpretation?<verify>block: is it observable (file exists, command output, test passes)?<done>block: present (even if unchecked)?
4. Wave Correctness
- Do Wave 1 plans truly have no dependencies on other plans in this phase?
- If plan B lists plan A in
depends_on, is plan A in an earlier wave? - Are there file conflicts within the same wave? (Two plans writing the same file in wave 1 is a conflict)
5. must_haves
- Is each must-have observable? ("feature works" is NOT observable; "src/feature.ts exports FeatureClass and npm test passes" IS)
- Do the must_haves collectively cover the plan's objective?
6. Scope
- Is each plan achievable in a single context window? (~200k tokens, 2-3 tasks)
- Are there any tasks that are too vague to implement without guessing?
7. Vertical Slice (tracer bullet)
- Does each plan's
objectivedescribe a demoable user-facing behavior delivered end-to-end? - Does any plan cover only a single layer (all schema, all API routes, all UI components across the feature)? If yes, flag as horizontal slice unless
single_layer_justified: trueis in the frontmatter. - The test: "Can someone demo what this plan delivers after it completes, without completing other plans?" If no and
single_layer_justifiedis not set → flag it.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 125 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 5295846510a1
learnship-plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository FavioVazquez/learnship (59 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,068 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
debugger
Debugging specialist for errors and test failures. Use when encountering build errors, runtime exceptions, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Invoke with /debugger to investigate issues.
verifier
Validates completed work. Use after tasks are marked done to confirm implementations are functional. Invoke with /verifier when you need to verify code actually works.
agent-orchestration-context-manager
Elite AI context engineering specialist mastering dynamic context management, vector databases, knowledge graphs, and intelligent memory systems. Orchestrates context across multi-agent workflows, enterprise AI systems, and long-running projects with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for complex AI…
code-documentation-code-reviewer
Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.
content-marketer
Elite content marketing strategist specializing in AI-powered content creation, omnichannel distribution, SEO optimization, and data-driven performance marketing. Masters modern content tools, social media automation, and conversion optimization with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for comprehensive content…
code-documentation-docs-architect
Creates comprehensive technical documentation from existing codebases. Analyzes architecture, design patterns, and implementation details to produce long-form technical manuals and ebooks. Use PROACTIVELY for system documentation, architecture guides, or technical deep-dives.