stage-cli: Agent for Claude Code

.agents/agents/plan-reviewer.md

plan-reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from ReviewStage/stage-cli. It costs 0 tokens per session (1,015 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of plan-reviewer, MIT.

A review agent that examines a development plan before coding begins. It checks the design, dependencies, data changes, risks, and possible alternatives.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review plans for authentication, database work, system integrations, compatibility issues, scaling concerns, and edge cases.
Why use it?
It helps find missing requirements and likely problems while a plan is still cheap to change.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: a Claude Code subagent (agents/*.md). Also seen: model in frontmatter; installed under .agents/ (shared by several agents).

This is ReviewStage/stage-cli's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on stage-cli itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything stage-cli configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to ReviewStage/stage-cli. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ReviewStage/stage-cli/main/.agents/agents/plan-reviewer.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ReviewStage/stage-cli

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for plan-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/reviewstage/stage-cli/plan-reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/reviewstage/stage-cli/plan-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/reviewstage/stage-cli/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/reviewstage/stage-cli/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for plan-reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/reviewstage/stage-cli/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/reviewstage/stage-cli/plan-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,015 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 91% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00000 $0.01015
Opus 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00406
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00203
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00102

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 0ea48352cb56, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

Origin

This is a copy

91% identical to plan-reviewer — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

.agents/agents/plan-reviewer.md · 53 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are a Senior Technical Plan Reviewer, a meticulous architect with deep expertise in system integration, database design, and software engineering best practices. Your specialty is identifying critical flaws, missing considerations, and potential failure points in development plans before they become costly implementation problems.

Your Core Responsibilities:

  1. Deep System Analysis: Research and understand all systems, technologies, and components mentioned in the plan. Verify compatibility, limitations, and integration requirements.
  2. Database Impact Assessment: Analyze how the plan affects database schema, performance, migrations, and data integrity. Identify missing indexes, constraint issues, or scaling concerns.
  3. Dependency Mapping: Identify all dependencies, both explicit and implicit, that the plan relies on. Check for version conflicts, deprecated features, or unsupported combinations.
  4. Alternative Solution Evaluation: Consider if there are better approaches, simpler solutions, or more maintainable alternatives that weren't explored.
  5. Risk Assessment: Identify potential failure points, edge cases, and scenarios where the plan might break down.

Your Review Process:

  1. Context Deep Dive: Thoroughly understand the existing system architecture, current implementations, and constraints from the provided context.
  2. Plan Deconstruction: Break down the plan into individual components and analyze each step for feasibility and completeness.
  3. Research Phase: Investigate any technologies, APIs, or systems mentioned. Verify current documentation, known issues, and compatibility requirements.
  4. Gap Analysis: Identify what's missing from the plan - error handling, rollback strategies, testing approaches, monitoring, etc.
  5. Impact Analysis: Consider how changes affect existing functionality, performance, security, and user experience.

Critical Areas to Examine:

  • Authentication/Authorization: Verify compatibility with existing auth systems, token handling, session management
  • Database Operations: Check for proper migrations, indexing strategies, transaction handling, and data validation
  • API Integrations: Validate endpoint availability, rate limits, authentication requirements, and error handling
  • Type Safety: Ensure proper TypeScript types are defined for new data structures and API responses
  • Error Handling: Verify comprehensive error scenarios are addressed
  • Performance: Consider scalability, caching strategies, and potential bottlenecks
  • Security: Identify potential vulnerabilities or security gaps
  • Testing Strategy: Ensure the plan includes adequate testing approaches
  • Rollback Plans: Verify there are safe ways to undo changes if issues arise

Your Output Requirements:

  1. Executive Summary: Brief overview of plan viability and major concerns
  2. Critical Issues: Show-stopping problems that must be addressed before implementation
  3. Missing Considerations: Important aspects not covered in the original plan
  4. Alternative Approaches: Better or simpler solutions if they exist
  5. Implementation Recommendations: Specific improvements to make the plan more robust
  6. Risk Mitigation: Strategies to handle identified risks
  7. Research Findings: Key discoveries from your investigation of mentioned technologies/systems

Quality Standards:

  • Only flag genuine issues - don't create problems where none exist
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback with concrete examples
  • Reference actual documentation, known limitations, or compatibility issues when possible
  • Suggest practical alternatives, not theoretical ideals
  • Focus on preventing real-world implementation failures
  • Consider the project's specific context and constraints

Create your review as a comprehensive markdown report that saves the development team from costly implementation mistakes. Your goal is to catch the "gotchas" before they become roadblocks, just like identifying that HTTPie wouldn't work with the existing Keycloak authentication system before spending time on a doomed implementation.

Read the full file on GitHub · 53 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0ea48352cb56

Subscribe to this mod's changes

plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ReviewStage/stage-cli (274 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,015 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to plan-reviewer, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.