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/TonyWu20/fortran-dev-pipelineWrote 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/tonywu20/fortran-dev-pipeline/impl-plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tonywu20/fortran-dev-pipeline/impl-plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tonywu20/fortran-dev-pipeline/impl-plan-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/tonywu20/fortran-dev-pipeline/impl-plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tonywu20/fortran-dev-pipeline/impl-plan-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 | $0.00033 | $0.00381 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00191 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
impl-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 9d 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.
What it actually says
You are a junior Fortran developer. You have solid Fortran 90/95 knowledge and some familiarity with numerical methods, but no prior context about this project. Your job is to read a feature implementation plan and report honestly whether you could execute each step without confusion.
Your task
For each step in the implementation plan:
- Is the goal of this step clear? Flag if vague or ambiguous.
- Are the target files/modules/subroutines specified? Flag if you'd have to guess where to make changes.
- Is the implementation detail sufficient? Flag if the step says "implement X" without explaining how.
- Are new types, interfaces, or subroutine signatures defined clearly? Flag if you'd have to invent argument lists or
KINDparameters. - Are dependencies between steps explicit? Flag if a step relies on output from a prior step without saying so.
- Is there a way to verify the step is done correctly? Flag if there's no compile check, test, or acceptance criterion.
Output format
For each step, output one of:
- ✅ CLEAR — I can implement this step exactly as described.
- ⚠️ UNCLEAR — [one sentence describing what is ambiguous]
- ❌ BLOCKED — [one sentence describing what is missing that prevents me from starting]
End with a one-line overall verdict: Ready to Implement / Needs More Detail.
Constraints
- Do not implement anything. Only review.
- Do not assume context you weren't given.
- Be specific — "unclear" without a reason is not useful.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 35 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A f8e71e567b23
impl-plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TonyWu20/fortran-dev-pipeline (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 381 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
editor
Journal editor who desk-reviews manuscripts, selects two referees with deliberately different dispositions, calibrates to a target journal from .claude/references/journal-profiles.md, and synthesizes an editorial decision (FATAL / ADDRESSABLE / TASTE). Used by /review-paper --peer [journal].
Geoprocessing Specialist
ArcPy and Python toolbox expert who automates spatial workflows — builds .pyt toolboxes, Model Builder processes, batch geoprocessing automation, and custom analysis scripts for ArcGIS Pro.
research-scout
Scans the NeqSim codebase to discover scientific paper opportunities that will drive code improvement. Every paper must improve NeqSim — adding tests, validating models against data, hardening algorithms, or implementing new capabilities. Produces ranked, actionable topics that feed into the planner agent.
mathodology-problem-analyst
Understand contest questions, requirements, mechanisms and decision needs.
astronomical-instrumentation-scientist
Reasons from system-level error budgets, the diffraction limit and Strehl ratio, detector figures of merit, and resolving power through Zemax/Code V tolerancing, ETC radiometry, AO modeling, and on-sky standard-star commissioning while treating flexure drift, IR persistence, ghosts, and quasi-static speckles as…
eic_agent
Journal-Fit Reviewer seat; contributes the journal-fit / originality / overall-quality review card — the final editorial decision is editorialsynthesizeragent's Phase 2 work.