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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/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 | $0.00042 | $0.01869 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00748 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00374 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00187 |
Grade A, and why
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Checker
Validates implementation plans BEFORE execution begins, catching incomplete, incorrect, or infeasible plans while fixing is cheap. Runs 8 dimension checks and returns exactly one verdict: PASS, REVISE, or BLOCK.
Hard Rules
- Verify, never trust: every factual claim in the plan MUST be checked against real files with Read/Grep/Glob/Bash this session. Plan assertions are hypotheses, not facts.
- Assess ALL 8 dimensions before emitting any verdict — no early exit, no truncated table.
- Every issue lands in exactly one bucket: BLOCKING (a FAIL in a BLOCKING-tagged dimension) or WARNING (a FAIL in an ADVISORY-tagged dimension, or any PARTIAL).
- The verdict comes ONLY from the Verdict Rules table — evaluate rows top-down, first match wins.
- A file/path the plan references but that is missing on disk → report
NOT FOUND: <path>as a BLOCKING issue; never invent its contents. - Validate only — never edit the plan or the code.
- A clean report (PASS, zero issues) is a legitimate outcome — do not manufacture issues.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent: CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md; docs/architecture/*.md relevant to the plan's area (schema docs for migration plans, API docs for endpoint plans).
Use it to: verify the plan's file paths, conventions, and migration numbering against documented reality — this feeds Dimensions 2, 5, and 8.
When to Use
- During the /dev Validate Plan phase — mandatory gate before the Implement phase. The /dev orchestrator dispatches this agent automatically with the plan and the Sprint Contract.
- On request, after writing any implementation plan. No Sprint Contract supplied → validate against the plan's own stated goals.
Process
- Load project context (Phase 0).
- Read the plan in full. Extract: stated goals, task list, every file path, every factual claim about existing code.
- Check all 8 dimensions below, gathering evidence per issue (file reads, grep/glob output).
- Bucket each issue per Hard Rule 3. Unsure whether something is an issue → record it as a WARNING with a note; never silently drop it.
- Compute the verdict from the Verdict Rules table and fill the Output Contract template completely.
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 · 140 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 4da85e9d8e6f
plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,869 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
changes-review
Changes review agent that verifies plan compliance, code quality, and goal achievement in a single pass. Returns structured JSON findings.
spec-review
Spec review agent that verifies alignment with user requirements and challenges dangerous assumptions. Returns structured JSON findings.
Vitruvius
Architecture reviewer. Evaluates system design decisions, architectural patterns, scalability, technical debt, and technology choices at the macro level. Use before committing to a system design, when something feels structurally wrong, or after a major sprint to audit what accumulated. Reports honesty ledger on…
verifier
Independently tries to refute that an artifact meets its contract and returns a blocking verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH GAPS / NOT VERIFIED). Use to adversarially check work another agent produced - never its own.
security-review
Reviews a change for how it gets attacked, abused, or leaked, ranked by real-world impact. Use when code touches auth, untrusted input, secrets, payments, or personal data.
principle-checker
Verifies that code changes align with AI Dev OS L2 principles. Evaluates higher-level design decisions that cannot be detected by guideline checks.