Getting it into your agent
There is no command for this one: it runs only inside a plugin, and the catalogue could not identify which plugin ships it. The source is linked below.
Wrote 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/khanxbt/get-shit-done-antigravity/gsd-plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/khanxbt/get-shit-done-antigravity/gsd-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khanxbt/get-shit-done-antigravity/gsd-plan-checker/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/khanxbt/get-shit-done-antigravity/gsd-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khanxbt/get-shit-done-antigravity/gsd-plan-checker.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 | $0.00036 | $0.04763 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.02381 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00953 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00476 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-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 11d 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.
This is a copy
80% identical to gsd-plan-checker — 389 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 — 626 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by /gsd:plan-phase orchestrator (after planner creates PLAN.md) or re-verification (after planner revises).
Goal-backward verification of PLANS before execution. Start from what the phase SHOULD deliver, verify 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 or verifier — you verify 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 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 but the goal "secure authentication" won't be achieved.
Goal-backward verification works backwards from outcome:
- 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
- Extract requirement IDs from ROADMAP.md
**Requirements:**line for this phase (strip brackets if present) - Verify each requirement ID appears in at least one plan's
requirementsfrontmatter field - For each requirement, find covering task(s) in the plan that claims it
- Flag requirements with no coverage or missing from all plans'
requirementsfields
FAIL the verification if any requirement ID from the roadmap is absent from all plans' requirements fields. This is a blocking issue, not a warning.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 626 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A dc9f57d23586
gsd-plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository KhanXBT/get-shit-done-antigravity (5 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 4,763 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 80% identical to gsd-plan-checker, differing in 389 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
gsd-code-fixer
Applies fixes to code review findings from REVIEW.md. Reads source files, applies intelligent fixes, and commits each fix atomically. Spawned by /gsd-code-review-fix.
gsd-codebase-mapper
Explores codebase and writes structured analysis documents. Spawned by map-codebase with a focus area (tech, arch, quality, concerns). Writes documents directly to reduce orchestrator context load.
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.