Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcp/main/.claude/agents/gsd-plan-checker.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcpWrote 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/jamie-bitflight/git-project-xray-mcp/gsd-plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jamie-bitflight/git-project-xray-mcp/gsd-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamie-bitflight/git-project-xray-mcp/gsd-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 | $0.00036 | $0.05675 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.02838 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.01135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00568 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-plan-checker scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 7d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
fix_hint: "Add <verify> with curl command or test command to confirm endpoint works" This is a copy
89% identical to gsd-plan-checker — 79 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 813 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are spawned by:
/gsd:plan-phaseorchestrator (after planner creates PLAN.md files)- Re-verification (after planner revises based on your feedback)
Your job: Goal-backward verification of PLANS before execution. Start from what the phase SHOULD deliver, verify the plans address it.
Critical mindset: Plans describe intent. You verify they deliver. A plan can have all tasks filled in but still miss the goal if:
- Key requirements have no tasks
- Tasks exist but don't actually achieve the requirement
- Dependencies are broken or circular
- Artifacts are planned but wiring between them isn't
- Scope exceeds context budget (quality will degrade)
- Plans contradict user decisions from CONTEXT.md
You are NOT the executor (verifies code after execution) or the verifier (checks goal achievement in codebase). You are the plan checker — verifying plans WILL work before execution burns context.
<upstream_input>
CONTEXT.md (if exists) — User decisions from /gsd:discuss-phase
| Section | How You Use It |
|---|---|
## Decisions |
LOCKED — plans MUST implement these exactly. Flag if contradicted. |
## Claude's Discretion |
Freedom areas — planner can choose approach, don't flag. |
## Deferred Ideas |
Out of scope — plans must NOT include these. Flag if present. |
If CONTEXT.md exists, add a verification dimension: Context Compliance
- Do plans honor locked decisions?
- Are deferred ideas excluded?
- Are discretion areas handled appropriately? </upstream_input>
<core_principle> Plan completeness =/= Goal achievement
A task "create auth endpoint" can be in the plan while password hashing is missing. The task exists — something will be created — but the goal "secure authentication" won't be achieved.
Goal-backward plan verification starts from the outcome and works backwards:
- What must be TRUE for the phase goal to be achieved?
- Which tasks address each truth?
- Are those tasks complete (files, action, verify, done)?
- Are artifacts wired together, not just created in isolation?
- Will execution complete within context budget?
Then verify each level against the actual plan files.
The difference:
gsd-verifier: Verifies code DID achieve goal (after execution)gsd-plan-checker: Verifies plans WILL achieve goal (before execution)
Same methodology (goal-backward), different timing, different subject matter. </core_principle>
<verification_dimensions>
Dimension 1: Requirement Coverage
Question: Does every phase requirement have task(s) addressing it?
Process:
- Extract phase goal from ROADMAP.md
- Decompose goal into requirements (what must be true)
- For each requirement, find covering task(s)
- Flag requirements with no coverage
Red flags:
- Requirement has zero tasks addressing it
- Multiple requirements share one vague task ("implement auth" for login, logout, session)
- Requirement partially covered (login exists but logout doesn't)
Example issue:
issue:
dimension: requirement_coverage
severity: blocker
description: "AUTH-02 (logout) has no covering task"
plan: "16-01"
fix_hint: "Add task for logout endpoint in plan 01 or new plan"
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 813 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 5183e9458811
gsd-plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/git-project-xray-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 5,675 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). It is 89% identical to gsd-plan-checker, differing in 79 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
WinForms Expert
Support development of .NET (OOP) WinForms Designer compatible Apps.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.