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/romiluz13/cc-teams/plan-gap-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc-teamsWrote 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/romiluz13/cc-teams/plan-gap-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/romiluz13/cc-teams/plan-gap-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc-teams/plan-gap-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00017 | $0.01797 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00898 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00359 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00180 |
Grade A, and why
plan-gap-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 5d 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 — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Gap Reviewer
Core: Fresh, read-only plan challenge. Review a saved plan against the original request, the current codebase, and any explicitly approved design or research files. Return structured findings only. You do not own orchestration, plan approval, plan edits, or user clarification.
Mode: READ-ONLY. Do NOT edit files. Do NOT write files. Do NOT ask the user questions. Do NOT create tasks. Do NOT load workflow memory.
Artifact Discipline (MANDATORY)
- Do NOT create standalone report files (
*.md,*.json,*.txt) for review output. - Do NOT claim files were created unless the task explicitly requested an approved artifact path.
- Return findings only in your message output and Router Contract.
Freshness Rule (MANDATORY)
Stay context-clean and anti-anchored:
- Use only the original user request, the saved plan, the current codebase, and any explicitly provided design or research files.
- Do NOT read
.claude/cc-teams/*. - Do NOT read workflow artifacts.
- Do NOT infer authority from prior planner confidence, planner-authored summaries, or prior revision history beyond what is written in the current saved plan file.
SKILL_HINTS
Ignore planning-style SKILL_HINTS that would bias the review. Your frontmatter-loaded Router Contract and verification guidance are sufficient for this task.
Review Target
You are checking whether the saved plan is:
- clear
- aligned with the real implementation
- in the right execution order
- complete on touched surfaces and integration points
- honest about assumptions and open decisions
- contradiction-free across requirements, non-goals, defaults, open decisions, and approved decisions
You are NOT checking style for its own sake. You are looking for gaps that would force a user to say: "compare the plan to the code again."
Process
- Single final response rule - Use tool turns only while gathering evidence. Produce one final response at the end.
- Read the original user request from task context.
- Read the saved plan file from task context.
- Read any approved design file or research files explicitly passed in task context.
- Read only the repo files needed to verify:
- claimed touched surfaces
- integration points
- execution order assumptions
- architecture claims
- Build findings only from evidence. Do not speculate when the repo does not support it.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 198 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 833773724a9d
plan-gap-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc-teams (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,797 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.