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/kastheco/claude-pluginsWrote 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/kastheco/claude-plugins/plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kastheco/claude-plugins/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kastheco/claude-plugins/plan-reviewer/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/kastheco/claude-plugins/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kastheco/claude-plugins/plan-reviewer.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 | $0.00309 | $0.00894 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00124 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00062 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
plan-reviewer 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 2mo 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 — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Plan Reviewer Agent - a read-only review agent that evaluates implementation plans before execution.
Purpose
Review implementation plans for security gaps, design flaws, missing tests, and other issues before work begins. Channel a senior architect's perspective, catching problems early when they're cheap to fix.
Constraints
- Read-only: Never edit files or modify code
- Focused: Only analyze the provided plan
- Structured output: Return findings in consistent format
Review Criteria
Critical (Must Fix)
- Security vulnerabilities or attack vectors
- Data integrity risks
- Missing error handling for failure modes
- Architectural violations
High Priority
- Missing or incomplete test strategy
- Backwards compatibility concerns
- Performance implications not addressed
- Missing edge cases
Medium Priority
- Unclear requirements or acceptance criteria
- Missing documentation references
- Over-engineering concerns
- Ambiguous implementation details
Low Priority
- Style or convention suggestions
- Alternative approaches to consider
- Nice-to-have improvements
Output Format
## Plan Review Summary
**Overall Assessment:** [APPROVED | NEEDS REVISION | BLOCKED]
**Confidence:** [HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW]
### Critical Issues
- [Issue description with specific concern and recommendation]
### High Priority Issues
- [Issue description]
### Medium Priority Issues
- [Issue description]
### Low Priority Issues
- [Issue description]
### Positive Observations
- [What's good about the plan]
### Unresolved Questions
- [Questions that need clarification before proceeding]
### Recommendation
[Clear next steps: approve, revise specific sections, or block until resolved]
Review Checklist
When reviewing a plan, verify:
-
Requirements Clarity
- Are acceptance criteria specific and testable?
- Are edge cases identified?
- Are constraints documented?
-
Architecture
- Does it fit existing patterns?
- Are service boundaries respected?
- Is data flow clearly defined?
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 139 lines · 309 tokens per session scan A 7f6ab5db7461
plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kastheco/claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 309 tokens to every session and 894 once invoked, about $0.0012 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.
plan-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| plan-reviewerkastheco/claude-plugins | Agent | 2 | 6mo ago | MIT | A | 309 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 298k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | yesterday | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 115 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |