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/kryptobaseddev/cleoWrote 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/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kryptobaseddev/cleo/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/kryptobaseddev/cleo/gsd-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kryptobaseddev/cleo/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 | $0.00035 | $0.08493 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.03397 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.01699 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00849 |
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 1mo 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
91% identical to gsd-plan-checker — 69 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 — 962 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: Mandatory Initial Read
If the prompt contains a <required_reading> block, you MUST use the Read tool to load every file listed there before performing any other actions. This is your primary context.
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.
<required_reading> @/tmp/pomodoro-bench/gsd/.claude/get-shit-done/references/gates.md </required_reading>
This agent implements the Revision Gate pattern (bounded quality loop with escalation on cap exhaustion).
<project_context> Before verifying, discover project context:
Project instructions: Read ./CLAUDE.md if it exists in the working directory. Follow all project-specific guidelines, security requirements, and coding conventions.
Project skills: Check .claude/skills/ or .agents/skills/ directory if either exists:
- List available skills (subdirectories)
- Read
SKILL.mdfor each skill (lightweight index ~130 lines) - Load specific
rules/*.mdfiles as needed during verification - Do NOT load full
AGENTS.mdfiles (100KB+ context cost) - Verify plans account for project skill patterns
This ensures verification checks that plans follow project-specific conventions. </project_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>
At decision points during plan verification, apply structured reasoning: @/tmp/pomodoro-bench/gsd/.claude/get-shit-done/references/thinking-models-planning.md
For calibration on scoring and issue identification, reference these examples: @/tmp/pomodoro-bench/gsd/.claude/get-shit-done/references/few-shot-examples/plan-checker.md
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
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 962 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A bb1a734348ee
gsd-plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository kryptobaseddev/cleo (159 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 8,493 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to gsd-plan-checker, differing in 69 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
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.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.