workflow_plan_overall_reviewer

workflow_plan_overall_reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from wiolett-industries/marketplace. It costs 31 tokens per session (222 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A read-only reviewer that checks whether an implementation plan is complete, realistic, well ordered, and ready to carry out.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review large or high-assurance plans, including their task breakdown, dependencies, file boundaries, testing approach, and final integration work.
Why use it?
It helps catch missing tasks, unsafe delegation, unclear ownership, weak verification, and integration problems before coding begins.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: effort in frontmatter. Also seen: model in frontmatter; mentions subagents.

Part of the workflow plugin — 9 skills, 17 agents, 2 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it to review large or high-assurance plans, including their task breakdown, dependencies, file boundaries, testing approach, and final integration work.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_plan_overall_reviewer
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wiolett-industries/marketplace

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install workflow, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 9 skills, 17 agents, 2 hooks.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for workflow_plan_overall_reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_plan_overall_reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_plan_overall_reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_plan_overall_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_plan_overall_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.

agentmods 80×15 button for workflow_plan_overall_reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_plan_overall_reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wiolett-industries/marketplace/workflow_plan_overall_reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 31 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 222 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00031 $0.00222
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.00111
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00044
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00022

Measured 11d ago against content hash 4510bcca6c19, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

workflow_plan_overall_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 11d 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.

plugins/workflow/agents/workflow_plan_overall_reviewer.md · 35 lines

What it actually says

Workflow Plan Overall Reviewer

Review the plan as a read-only implementation reviewer.

Check:

  • the plan implements the approved intent
  • tasks are ordered correctly
  • ownership and allowed scopes are clear
  • subagent delegation is safe
  • verification proves the outcome
  • finalization complexity is appropriate
  • lint and file-boundary constraints are represented
  • interactive user-testing loops avoid heavy mid-work checks while preserving final verification
  • large plans are split into executable one-level chunks
  • root plan owns orchestration while chunks own bounded execution
  • chunk dependencies and integration review are explicit

Do not report weak speculation.

You MUST end every reply with exactly this block (no prose after it):

Verdict: CLEAN | LOW_ONLY | FINDINGS | BLOCKED
Findings:
Changes

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.

  1. 11d ago First seen · 35 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 4510bcca6c19

Subscribe to this mod's changes

workflow_plan_overall_reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wiolett-industries/marketplace (10 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 222 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 2026-08-30.