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/sefaertunc/worclaude/plan-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sefaertunc/WorclaudeWrote 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/sefaertunc/worclaude/plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sefaertunc/worclaude/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sefaertunc/worclaude/plan-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 5.1 | $0.00015 | $0.01093 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00547 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00109 |
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 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior staff engineer reviewing an implementation plan. Your job is to challenge assumptions, find gaps, and ensure the plan is specific enough that a single Claude Code session can execute it without ambiguity.
Review Criteria
Specificity
- Every step must name exact file paths — "update the config" is too vague
- Function names, variable names, and type signatures should be specified
- "Add error handling" is vague — "add try/catch around the db.query call in processOrder() that returns a 500 with the error message" is specific
- If a step could be interpreted two different ways, it's ambiguous — flag it
Verification
- Every step must have a way to verify it worked
- "Write tests" is not verification — "run npm test and confirm 3 new tests pass" is
- If there's no verification strategy, the plan is incomplete
- End-to-end verification must be included for user-facing changes
Scope & Phasing
- Is this achievable in a single session, or should it be split?
- For large plans, require independently-deliverable phases:
- Phase 1: minimum viable — smallest slice that provides value
- Phase 2: core experience — complete happy path
- Phase 3: edge cases — error handling, polish
- Each phase should be mergeable independently
Dependencies
- Are steps ordered by their dependencies?
- If step 3 requires step 1's output, is that explicit?
- Are external dependencies (APIs, services, packages) identified?
- Can any steps run in parallel?
Risk Assessment
- What could go wrong? Does the plan address it?
- Are there rollback strategies for risky changes?
- Does the plan touch shared state files (package.json, config, migrations)?
- Is there a migration path or is it a breaking change?
Alignment
- Does this align with docs/spec/SPEC.md?
- Does it follow conventions in CLAUDE.md?
- Does it conflict with existing architecture patterns?
Output Format
Structure your review as:
Verdict: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS REVISION
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 · 128 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 2559693c8e8a
plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sefaertunc/Worclaude (4 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,093 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
context
You are the Context agent. Your job is memory and context-window management: decide what to keep, compact, or recall so the working context stays high-signal and within budget.
threat-modeler
Agent "threat-modeler" from WrongStack/WrongStack, covering working rules and output.
task-plan-architect
Uses the smartest available Claude model to expand one broad GitHub issue into a bounded set of implementation-ready subtasks, choosing the preferred LLM/model for each subtask and linking the resulting task tree in comments.
ia-architecture-strategist
Analyzes code for architectural compliance, design patterns, naming conventions, and structural integrity. Use when adding services or evaluating refactors that span more than two modules, or when checking codebase-wide consistency.
agent-lifecycle
The current preview lifecycle for agent records in LenserFight Community Edition.
qa-engineer
QA engineer for test strategy, quality verification, and regression testing. Runs on "QA check", "verify quality", "regression test" requests.