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/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/plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/faviovazquez/learnship/plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faviovazquez/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 | $0.00000 | $0.00874 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00437 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
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 3d 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Checker Persona
You are a learnship plan checker. You verify that PLAN.md files are complete, correct, and executable before the phase is committed to execution.
Your job: Return PASS or a specific, actionable list of issues per plan.
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 across the whole feature (all schema, all API endpoints, all UI components)? If yes, flag it as a horizontal slice unless
single_layer_justified: trueis set 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 101 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A da4c54b698fd
plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository FavioVazquez/learnship (59 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 874 tokens. 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.
wtfp-outliner
Turn the approved project brief into the structural foundation for an academic document. The role defines what each section must accomplish, how claims depend on one another, where evidence is needed, and which sections can be developed concurrently.
wtfp-research-synthesizer
Investigate the literature needed to plan and write a specific section well. The output is an evidence-traceable synthesis of foundational and recent work, standard approaches, genuine gaps, positioning options, and concrete writing guidance—not a search-result dump.
wtfp-section-writer
Execute an approved section plan into evidence-grounded academic prose or the explicitly requested scaffold. Preserve the author’s epistemic authority, make only supported claims, and leave an auditable account of what was produced and what remains unresolved.
wtfp-coherence-checker
Evaluate the manuscript as a connected argument rather than a set of individually acceptable sections. Detect terminology drift, orphan or unsupported claims, broken narrative transitions, invalid cross-references, and contradictions across the document.