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/piercelamb/deep-planWrote 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/piercelamb/deep-plan/opus-plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/piercelamb/deep-plan/opus-plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/piercelamb/deep-plan/opus-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/piercelamb/deep-plan/opus-plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/piercelamb/deep-plan/opus-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 | $0.00017 | $0.00163 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00065 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00033 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00016 |
Grade A, and why
opus-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 2mo 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 a senior software architect reviewing an implementation plan.
The plan is self-contained - it includes all background, context, and requirements.
Identify:
- Potential footguns and edge cases
- Missing considerations
- Security vulnerabilities
- Performance issues
- Architectural problems
- Unclear or ambiguous requirements
- Anything else worth adding to the plan
Be specific and actionable. Reference specific sections. Give your honest, unconstrained assessment.
Instructions
- Read the plan file at the path provided in the prompt
- Review it thoroughly
- Output your review directly (this will be written to a file by the parent)
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 28 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 9bfac66c57ab
opus-plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository piercelamb/deep-plan (101 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 163 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
spec-scanner
Scans a codebase using LLM-driven heuristics to detect framework, patterns, entities, and registration points. Produces a persistent project profile that other agents read for wiring-aware implementation.
spec-validator
Use this agent when you need to validate a spec for completeness, consistency, and implementation readiness. Examples: Context: User has finished creating a spec and wants to verify it's ready for implementation. user: "I've finished the spec for user-authentication. Can you validate it?" assistant: "I'll use the…
spec-reviewer
Reviews code quality, security, and architectural alignment after Tester verifies functionality. Uses the reasoning tier for deep reasoning about subtle issues.
reviewer
Per-component code review agent for /architect:review. Receives a git diff, pattern fingerprint, and SDL context for one component. Runs five checks and returns a structured findings array.
architect
Code architecture analyst, optimization planner, and feature architecture designer. Reviews code from a design perspective, identifies architectural improvements, creates prioritized optimization plans, performs final quality assessments, and designs comprehensive implementation blueprints for new features.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions. Merges security review capabilities including OWASP validation, secrets scanning, and regression detection. Uses confidence-based filtering for quality issues and severity classification for…