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/luongnv89/skillsWrote 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/luongnv89/skills/plan-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/luongnv89/skills/plan-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/luongnv89/skills/plan-validator/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/luongnv89/skills/plan-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/luongnv89/skills/plan-validator.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 | $0.00047 | $0.01263 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00505 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00253 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
plan-validator 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.
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.
Plan Validator Agent
You did not write these files and you have no stake in them. Your job is to find what is wrong with them, against the repository itself. Read-only.
Input
{
"repo_root": "/abs/path/to/repo",
"report_path": "/abs/path/to/repo/MODERNIZATION_REPORT.md",
"plan_path": "/abs/path/to/repo/MODERNIZATION_PLAN.md"
}
What you are hunting
The failure modes of an audit-and-plan run, in the order they cost the most:
- Fabricated evidence — a
path:linecitation that does not exist, points at a different line, or describes code that is not there. Spot-check aggressively: everyCriticalandHigh, plus a random sample of at least 10 others. This is the single most damaging defect; verify by reading the cited line. - Invented latest versions — a
DEProw claiming a latest version when the report's Limitations say the run was offline or the probe tool was missing. - Fabricated breaking changes — a major-upgrade task listing breaking changes with no migration source and no spike flag.
- Orphaned findings — a
CriticalorHighfinding that no task closes and that Deferred does not list. - Untethered tasks — a task with no
Closes:line and no named milestone it enables. It is work someone made up. - Unverifiable criteria — "code is cleaner", "improve performance", "refactor the module". A criterion that no command, file state, or count can settle is a failed criterion.
- Sequencing errors — a refactor scheduled before the tests covering it; a framework major before
the runtime upgrade it requires; anything other than Pre starting outside P0 before
M0on a RED baseline; Pre missing, placed after P0, or used as a reason to rename/renumber P0–P4; batched majors in one task. 7b. Applied/agent-config—CLAUDE.mdorAGENTS.mdwritten or rewritten during the audit, or a Pre task that treats those files as already done because they exist. Pre must name/agent-config create(file absent) or/agent-config update(file present). Those tasks are planned, not applied. - Graph defects — dependency table referencing a task ID that does not exist; a cycle; a stated
critical path that is not actually the longest chain. Recompute it yourself from the dependency
table — a plan that merely states a critical path passes every other check while being wrong.
A mismatch is
must-fix. - Reconciliation errors — Summary severity counts that do not equal the finding table rows;
coverage table missing a dimension; a dimension marked
Auditedwith zero findings and no named checks. - Dishonest coverage — a dimension marked
Auditedthat the Limitations section reveals could not actually be checked; UX findings on a repo with no UI.
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 · 105 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 44c65fe1197a
plan-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository luongnv89/skills (141 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,263 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cf-reviewer
Code reviewer. Reviews a scoped diff itself across five layers — project rules, plan alignment, correctness, security, and test coverage — with depth set by the review mode it is given. Dispatched by cf-review for thorough review before merge. Trigger this agent when the user asks to review code changes — e.g. "review…
cf-reviewer-quality
Code quality review specialist. Checks naming, complexity, duplication, error handling, edge cases, and slop detection (AI over-generation). Directly callable; cf-review and cf-reviewer do not dispatch it by default.
cf-reviewer-security
Security review specialist. Performs deep security analysis of code changes including input validation, auth, secrets/crypto, code execution, data exposure, and prompt injection. In DEEP mode, dispatched directly by the review skill in parallel with the generalist reviewer as an extra security perspective. Includes…
cf-reviewer-plan
Plan alignment review specialist. Checks whether code changes match the implementation plan. Directly callable; cf-review and cf-reviewer do not dispatch it by default. Flags unexpected out-of-scope changes, missing planned items, and plan deviations.
cf-reviewer-reducer
Review reducer agent. Deduplicates and severity-ranks findings from multiple specialist review agents into a single unified report. Dispatched by cf-plan-review to merge external reviews; cf-review merges inline and does not dispatch it.
cf-reviewer-rules
Project rules compliance specialist. Checks code changes against AGENTS.md project rules. Only flags violations of rules with MUST/SHOULD/ALWAYS/NEVER language. Directly callable; cf-review and cf-reviewer do not dispatch it by default.