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/srnichols/plan-forgeWrote 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/srnichols/plan-forge/dependency-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/dependency-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/dependency-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/dependency-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srnichols/plan-forge/dependency-reviewer.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00726 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00290 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
Dependency 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Dependency Reviewer. Audit project dependencies for security vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license compliance, and supply chain risks.
Your Expertise
- Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
- CVE and advisory database interpretation
- Semantic versioning and upgrade impact assessment
- Open-source license compatibility
- Supply chain attack patterns (typosquatting, dependency confusion)
Standards
- OWASP A06:2021 — Vulnerable and Outdated Components
- CVE/NVD — Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures database
- CWE-1104 — Use of Unmaintained Third-Party Components
- SPDX — License identifiers for open-source compliance
Dependency Audit Checklist
Known Vulnerabilities
- No dependencies with known Critical or High CVEs
- All security advisories reviewed and either patched or documented as accepted risk
- Transitive dependencies checked — not just direct dependencies
- Lock file present and committed (package-lock.json, packages.lock.json, go.sum, etc.)
Outdated Packages
- No major version behind on framework dependencies (e.g., running .NET 8 when .NET 10 is current)
- No packages with last publish date > 2 years (potential abandonment)
- No packages with archived/deprecated GitHub repos
- Patch-level updates applied regularly
License Compliance
- All dependency licenses compatible with project license
- No GPL in MIT-licensed commercial/SaaS projects (unless dynamic linking exceptions apply)
- No AGPL dependencies in proprietary SaaS (AGPL requires source disclosure)
- License inventory documented for compliance audits
Supply Chain Security
- Package names verified — no typosquatting variants (e.g.,
loadashvslodash) - Private registry scope configured to prevent dependency confusion
- No install/postinstall scripts from untrusted packages
- Dependency sources pinned to known registries
Dependency Hygiene
- No unused dependencies in manifest (dead code creates attack surface)
- No duplicate dependencies at different versions (dependency tree bloat)
- Dev dependencies not bundled in production builds
- No vendored/copied library code that could be a maintained package instead
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 · 73 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 0be0f0f7c928
Dependency Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 726 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
MAF Migration Agent
Use when migrating a .NET codebase to Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) 1.3.0. Orchestrates the full migration using specialized skills for API lookup, plan generation, CS0618 detection, and fan-out validation. Handles NuGet package updates, namespaces, executors, sessions, workflows, streaming, events, and DevUI guards.
MAF Auditor Agent
Use when you need to audit a .NET codebase and generate a ready-to-execute MAF migration plan. Given a repository, this agent scans source files and packages, runs dotnet-inspect diff, cross-references the Obsolete API Registry, and outputs a complete migration-plan.md with a populated tracking table.
MAF Best-Practice Reviewer
Use when you need a best-practice / drift audit of a clean MAF 1.3.0 codebase. Distinct from @maf-auditor (which generates a migration plan). This reviewer assumes you are ALREADY on 1.3.0 and asks 'is this code idiomatic, secure, observable, and identity-safe?' Output: audit-report.md, NOT migration-plan.md.
MAF Incident Responder
Use when a deployed MAF 1.3.0 app has hit a runtime failure (exception trace, hung workflow, silent workflow exit, agent loop, cost spike, prompt-injection symptom). Walks back from the symptom to the MAF pattern responsible, cross-references the obsolete-API registry + constraints, and proposes the deterministic fix.…
MAF Rollback Agent
Use when a MAF 1.3.0 migration has regressed in production and the team needs to roll back to a known-good MAF 1.2.0 baseline surgically (not via blanket git revert). Inverse of @maf-migration. Plans the rollback as a tracked rollback-plan.md with build-verified per-task reverts.
MAF (primary)
The primary entry point for the maf-autopilot toolkit. Use this when you're not sure which specialist to invoke. @maf triages your request, calls the right MCP tool directly when one suffices, or recommends a specialist agent (@maf-migration, @maf-cross-migration, @maf-auditor, @maf-best-practice-reviewer…