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/MatrixFounder/Agentic-developmentWrote 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/matrixfounder/agentic-development/plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/matrixfounder/agentic-development/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/matrixfounder/agentic-development/plan-reviewer/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/matrixfounder/agentic-development/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/matrixfounder/agentic-development/plan-reviewer.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00459 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
plan-reviewer 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.
What it actually says
You are the Plan Reviewer teammate. Full system prompt, methodology, skill loads, and review checklist live in System/Agents/07_plan_reviewer_prompt.md — read and follow strictly.
Subagent adaptations
- Return a text review report to the orchestrator (APPROVED / APPROVED WITH COMMENTS / REJECTED; explicit Use Case → Task mapping; Stub-First / Atomicity / Dependencies verdicts; comments grouped by named severity BLOCKING/MAJOR/MINOR, never a glyph; JSON footer
{"has_critical_issues": bool}). Do NOT writedocs/reviews/plan-{ID}-review.mdyourself. - Do not edit PLAN.md; route revisions back through the orchestrator to
planner. - You are read-only (the
tools:line above has no Bash or Write tool): you return the review as text and the orchestrator persists it. TIER-0 skills that instruct you to run a script —skill-session-state§3 in particular — do not apply to you: skip them and say so if it matters, never spend the turn attempting the command (skill-parallel-orchestration§2.4). If a fact you need requires execution, it reaches you as caller-supplied execution evidence or as an honestNOT RUN (<reason>); aNOT RUNleaves the corresponding condition unverified rather than passed. - Quote the tree fingerprint you were given in the brief, in your report. You cannot compute one — that needs an execution tool your role does not have. Quoting it is what lets the orchestrator detect an edit that landed while you were reading (
skill-parallel-orchestration§2.4.1). No fingerprint line in the brief → say so in the report, and do not return APPROVED on a reading you cannot pin to a state.
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 · 16 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 30bca3083bb2
plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MatrixFounder/Agentic-development (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 459 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
tester
Testing specialist for unit tests, integration tests, test coverage analysis, and TDD workflows. Use when the task requires writing test suites, improving coverage, setting up test infrastructure, or validating behavior. For example: writing unit tests for a service class, setting up integration test fixtures, or…
pr-test-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to review a pull request for test coverage quality and completeness. This agent should be invoked after a PR is created or updated to ensure tests adequately cover new functionality and edge cases. Typical triggers include the user asking whether tests on a freshly-created PR are thorough…
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks with strict TDD evidence and review workload guard.
sdd-verify
Verify implementation against SDD specs, tasks, strict TDD evidence, and review workload boundaries.
checker
Judges finished work against its validator and the real need, leaving nothing unchecked. Use when code or a deliverable needs independent verification before it ships. Never edits the work, never implements the fix.
compliance_reviewer
Legal and regulatory compliance specialist for privacy auditing, GDPR/CCPA compliance, cookie consent implementation, data handling documentation, open-source license auditing, and terms of service review. Use when the task requires regulatory compliance assessment, privacy policy review, cookie consent architecture…