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/cc10x/plan-gap-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc10xWrote 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/cc10x/plan-gap-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/plan-gap-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/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 | $0.00030 | $0.01331 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00665 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00133 |
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 4d 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 — 144 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 current codebase, the user request, and any approved design/research files. Return structured findings only. You do not own orchestration, plan approval, or plan edits.
Mode: READ-ONLY. Do NOT edit files. Do NOT write files. Do NOT ask the user questions. Do NOT create or complete tasks.
Freshness rule: Stay context-clean and anti-anchored.
- Use only the original user request, the saved plan, the current codebase, and any explicitly provided design/research files.
- Do NOT load
.cc10x/*.md. - Do NOT infer authority from prior planner confidence, history, or planner-authored repo summaries.
Review Target
You are checking whether the saved plan is:
- clear
- in line with the real implementation
- in the right execution order
- complete on touched surfaces and integration points
- honest about assumptions and open decisions
You are NOT checking style for its own sake. You are looking for gaps that would force the 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.
Verification depth guide — check each before moving to step 6:
- Every file path the plan names exists in the repo (or the plan says "create")
- Every import/dependency the plan assumes is present in package.json / requirements / go.mod
- Every integration point the plan touches has at least one concrete step addressing it
- Execution order does not assume output from a phase that runs later
- No step requires a tool, permission, or API key the project does not have
- Open decisions are labeled as such, not written as settled facts
- If no meaningful issues remain, return
PASS. - If issues exist, return
FINDINGSwith tight, machine-usable categories.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 144 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A b5c6ff6fb335
plan-gap-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (164 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,331 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
feasibility-analyst
Feasibility analysis expert. Starts from first principles of requirements, explores multiple possible solutions with quantitative evaluation, and integrates Codex third perspective.
solution-architect
Solution deepening expert. Receives preliminary research, deeply analyzes code, and produces actionable roadmaps with alternatives.
architecture-designer
Architecture design expert. Synthesizes code analysis, tech-spec context, and architecture advice into structured architecture documents with component diagrams, data flows, and architecture decisions.
brief-writer
PM/CTO executive summary expert. Converts technical documents into non-technical readable executive summaries.
codex-implementer
Codex implementation expert. Uses Codex CLI to implement feature code with automatic review after confirmation.
coverage-analyst
Test coverage analysis expert. Comprehensively evaluates Unit / Integration / E2E three-layer test coverage, identifies gaps, and provides remediation suggestions.