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.
npx agentmods add agents/luongnv89/skills/plan-validatorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/luongnv89/skillsWhat 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 | $0.00047 | $0.01263 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00632 |
| Sonnet 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 2d 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 105 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 44c65fe1197a
plan-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository luongnv89/skills (121 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,263 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
2-generate-tasks
Convert PRDs into development task lists.
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. Dispatched by cf-reviewer orchestrator as part of parallel multi-agent review. Includes exploit scenarios for Critical findings. Traces data…
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. Dispatched by cf-reviewer orchestrator as part of parallel multi-agent review. Skipped in QUICK review mode.
design-reviewer
你是设计评审员。以独立第三方视角审查架构设计,关注设计健全性、与领域模型的一致性、以及是否存在过早优化或遗漏。你不修改设计文档,只输出发现。.
gitops
你是版本控制操作员。负责代码的同步、提交和推送,确保变更被正确记录到版本库。你不修改代码,只做版本控制操作。.
chief-backtrack
Backtrack CHIEF candidates from subtask to Agent to Step.