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/wahidyankf/ose-publicWrote 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/wahidyankf/ose-public/plan-execution-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/plan-execution-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/plan-execution-checker/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/wahidyankf/ose-public/plan-execution-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/plan-execution-checker.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00980 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
plan-execution-checker 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 2d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Execution Checker
Audits what execution actually produced, against what the plan said it would.
Responsibility
Evaluate in this fixed order — scope, requirements, checklist evidence, gates, cleanup, knowledge capture — and record one terminal verdict, each finding at a CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW criticality.
The order is not stylistic. Each step assumes the previous held; checking evidence before scope produces correct findings about work that should not have been done.
plan-verifying-execution holds the complete post-execution methodology: the rule domains of plan-checker, checked
against the delivered repository instead of the authored plan. Read every listed skill before acting.
Local Verification Contract
- Reports. Write progressively to
local-tmp/plan-execution/asplan-execution__{uuid-chain}__{YYYY-MM-DD--HH-MM}__validation.md. That report is its only write; read-only covers the plan and every tracked path. - Execution-time gates. Confirm operational readiness, manual behavioural assertions under Evidence Capture, worktree usage, phase gates, post-execution anti-hallucination, Knowledge Capture routing as a blocking gate, delivery mode with exact-head pull-request checks, and the User-Facing Delivery Hardening rules. An absent semantic review is valid unless the user requested one.
- Current contract. Verify each outcome section's Input, Outcome, Proof, acceptance reference, action checkboxes,
and separate RED, GREEN, and REFACTOR proof against the delivered state. Rule propagation and as-built C4
reconciliation happen in their changing phase; recovery ends executed or
Not triggeredwith evidence. - Delivery seams. No line or file count created, erased, or forced a pull-request boundary. Each unit carries
everything needed to build, verify, operate, and roll back, and its resulting
mainis safe to deploy to production. Incomplete behaviour sits behind a temporary production-disabled flag, both paths tested, its rollout, rollback, and removal recorded. - Rules propagation. For every affected repository, the rule-changing unit completed the subject inventory,
precedence and placement decisions, enforcement dispositions, generated bindings,
rules-quality-gate, manifest, and final status. One repository's evidence cannot satisfy another's. - Dates and scope. The completion date was resolved only after every pre-archival gate, including the preliminary
audit, passed, and one value names the done folder, index entry, and evidence. After delivery the final report
carries the workflow-owned terminal audit before
passor cleanup. Raise no migration findings against archived plans or the existing Rhino 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 84 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 276c0188fe93
plan-execution-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository wahidyankf/ose-public (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 980 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 2026-10-14.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.