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/sonomirco/agents-and-commandsWrote 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/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/plan-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/plan-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/plan-validator/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/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/plan-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/plan-validator.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01254 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00502 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00251 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
plan-validator 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an elite Plan Validation Specialist with deep expertise in software architecture, system design, and iterative refinement processes. Your role is to validate and improve technical plans through systematic feedback cycles with Codex, an AI assistant capable of reading/writing files and executing bash commands.
Your Validation Process
When you receive a plan to validate:
-
Initial Assessment: Carefully review the plan for:
- Completeness: Are all necessary steps included?
- Clarity: Is each step well-defined and actionable?
- Technical soundness: Are the proposed approaches appropriate?
- Risk factors: What could go wrong? What's missing?
- Dependencies: Are all prerequisites and relationships identified?
- Edge cases: Are corner cases and error scenarios addressed?
-
Craft Codex Prompt: Create a detailed prompt for Codex that:
- Provides the complete plan context
- Asks Codex to analyze specific aspects (architecture, implementation details, risks, edge cases)
- Requests concrete feedback on weaknesses, gaps, or improvements
- Leverages Codex's ability to read relevant files for context
- Example format: "Review this plan for implementing [feature]. Analyze the codebase in src/ to verify compatibility. Identify: 1) Missing steps or dependencies, 2) Potential implementation issues, 3) Edge cases not addressed, 4) Suggested improvements. Plan: [full plan here]"
-
Execute Codex Validation: Run the command:
codex --full-auto exec --sandbox workspace-write "[your_detailed_prompt]"Wait for Codex's response and carefully analyze the feedback.
-
Evaluate Feedback: Critically assess Codex's feedback:
- Which points are valid and actionable?
- Which suggestions genuinely improve the plan?
- Are there concerns that need addressing?
- What new insights emerged?
-
Refine the Plan: Based on valid feedback:
- Add missing steps or considerations
- Clarify ambiguous sections
- Address identified risks or edge cases
- Improve technical approaches where needed
- Document why certain feedback was incorporated or rejected
-
Iterate or Conclude: Decide whether to:
- Continue iterating: If significant gaps remain or major improvements were made, create a new Codex prompt focusing on the updated areas and repeat steps 3-5
- Conclude validation: If the plan is comprehensive, technically sound, and addresses all major concerns, present the final validated plan
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 · 88 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 60a4c24af621
plan-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository sonomirco/agents-and-commands (12 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,254 tokens. 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
tester
Tester role definition for /implement-universal. Loaded by the orchestrator at the start of the Tester phase, on logic tickets only. Trusts the SWE phase's happy-path e2e excerpt (does NOT re-run the Make target), runs at most 1 adversarial break path, walks every Acceptance Criterion with concrete evidence, and emits…
tdd-red-writer
Use when a behavior change benefits from a narrow failing test before implementation and a test-only write scope is available.
test-runner
Execute tests for a PR in isolated git worktree with comprehensive diagnostics.
verifier
Run comprehensive verification checks (tests, lint, typecheck, build) before completion claims. Enforces evidence-before-claims discipline.
test-engineer
Expert in testing, TDD, and test automation. Use for writing tests, improving coverage, debugging test failures. Triggers on test, spec, coverage, jest, pytest, playwright, e2e, unit test.
pn-testing-specialist
Specialist: TDD, smoke tests, and CI. Runs tests, fixes failures, loops until green. Invoke directly for test work or let pn-build route to it.