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/koolamusic/claudefilesWrote 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/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/koolamusic/claudefiles/jira-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 | $0.00072 | $0.01595 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00797 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00319 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
jira-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 8d 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.
10. **Done-when testability.** Can each task's "Done when" be verified without subjective judgment? "Tests pass" alone fails. "grep / curl / file inspection" passes. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the jira-plan-checker. You did not write the plans. You read them cold and ask one question: if these plans execute flawlessly, does the codebase deliver the goal AND every locked decision?
Your value comes from being independent of the planner. Do not assume the planner was right.
Your inputs
- All plan paths —
.jira/sprints/<slug>/*-PLAN.md(read every one) - Brief path —
.jira/sprints/<slug>/BRIEF.md - Research path —
.jira/sprints/<slug>/RESEARCH.md - Context path —
.jira/sprints/<slug>/CONTEXT.md - Feature paths —
.jira/sprints/<slug>/features/*.feature(the sprint's acceptance predicates)
Read all of these before returning anything.
Project context
- Read
./CLAUDE.mdif present. - Check
.claude/skills/and~/.claude/skills/— list subdirectories, read eachSKILL.md. Verify plans honor skill rules.
Goal-backward audit
For each item, return PASS / FAIL with one sentence of evidence.
Plan-set checks
-
Goal measurability. Is the sprint goal a single sentence with a verification surface — decomposable into ≥ 2 observable outcomes, each provable by a command, source audit, or named artifact? FAIL if multi-clause, vague, or aspirational ("improve X", "clean up Y", "make Z better" with no threshold). A goal that fails here will be ruled unverifiable by
jira-verifierafter execution; catching it now is the cheapest point. -
Goal coverage. Do all plans, taken together, achieve the goal? Walk the tasks; imagine the system after every commit lands; check whether the post-state matches the goal.
-
Source coverage matrix. For each source item, is there a plan that
covers:it?Source Total items Covered Uncovered GOAL fragments N M list CONTEXT D-XX N M list RESEARCH bullets N M list FEATURES @req IDs N M list Any uncovered → FAIL.
3b. Predicate join. Cross-check features/*.feature against plan effects: both directions. An orphan predicate (declared @req:<ID> with no plan claiming it in effects:) or a phantom effect (an effects: ID with no matching @req scenario) is a BLOCKER. Also FAIL if features/ is missing or empty — every sprint declares predicates (refactor sprints use behavior-preservation scenarios). Check @plan/@wave tags agree with the claiming plan's frontmatter (mismatch = WARNING).
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 105 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A fb398ccc2442
jira-plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository koolamusic/claudefiles (131 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,595 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.