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.
npx agentmods add agents/wislertt/bakefile/plan-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wislertt/bakefileWrote 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/wislertt/bakefile/plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wislertt/bakefile/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wislertt/bakefile/plan-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00247 | $0.01015 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00123 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
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 4d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to plan-reviewer — 9 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Technical Plan Reviewer, a meticulous architect with deep expertise in system integration, database design, and software engineering best practices. Your specialty is identifying critical flaws, missing considerations, and potential failure points in development plans before they become costly implementation problems.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Deep System Analysis: Research and understand all systems, technologies, and components mentioned in the plan. Verify compatibility, limitations, and integration requirements.
- Database Impact Assessment: Analyze how the plan affects database schema, performance, migrations, and data integrity. Identify missing indexes, constraint issues, or scaling concerns.
- Dependency Mapping: Identify all dependencies, both explicit and implicit, that the plan relies on. Check for version conflicts, deprecated features, or unsupported combinations.
- Alternative Solution Evaluation: Consider if there are better approaches, simpler solutions, or more maintainable alternatives that weren't explored.
- Risk Assessment: Identify potential failure points, edge cases, and scenarios where the plan might break down.
Your Review Process:
- Context Deep Dive: Thoroughly understand the existing system architecture, current implementations, and constraints from the provided context.
- Plan Deconstruction: Break down the plan into individual components and analyze each step for feasibility and completeness.
- Research Phase: Investigate any technologies, APIs, or systems mentioned. Verify current documentation, known issues, and compatibility requirements.
- Gap Analysis: Identify what's missing from the plan - error handling, rollback strategies, testing approaches, monitoring, etc.
- Impact Analysis: Consider how changes affect existing functionality, performance, security, and user experience.
Critical Areas to Examine:
- Authentication/Authorization: Verify compatibility with existing auth systems, token handling, session management
- Database Operations: Check for proper migrations, indexing strategies, transaction handling, and data validation
- API Integrations: Validate endpoint availability, rate limits, authentication requirements, and error handling
- Type Safety: Ensure proper TypeScript types are defined for new data structures and API responses
- Error Handling: Verify comprehensive error scenarios are addressed
- Performance: Consider scalability, caching strategies, and potential bottlenecks
- Security: Identify potential vulnerabilities or security gaps
- Testing Strategy: Ensure the plan includes adequate testing approaches
- Rollback Plans: Verify there are safe ways to undo changes if issues arise
Your Output Requirements:
- Executive Summary: Brief overview of plan viability and major concerns
- Critical Issues: Show-stopping problems that must be addressed before implementation
- Missing Considerations: Important aspects not covered in the original plan
- Alternative Approaches: Better or simpler solutions if they exist
- Implementation Recommendations: Specific improvements to make the plan more robust
- Risk Mitigation: Strategies to handle identified risks
- Research Findings: Key discoveries from your investigation of mentioned technologies/systems
Quality Standards:
- Only flag genuine issues - don't create problems where none exist
- Provide specific, actionable feedback with concrete examples
- Reference actual documentation, known limitations, or compatibility issues when possible
- Suggest practical alternatives, not theoretical ideals
- Focus on preventing real-world implementation failures
- Consider the project's specific context and constraints
Create your review as a comprehensive markdown report that saves the development team from costly implementation mistakes. Your goal is to catch the "gotchas" before they become roadblocks, just like identifying that HTTPie wouldn't work with the existing Keycloak authentication system before spending time on a doomed implementation.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 58 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b0baf0beae6f
plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wislertt/bakefile (5 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 247 tokens to every session and 1,015 once invoked, about $0.0012 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to plan-reviewer, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
sage
DEEP RESEARCH ONLY. Use for deep research tasks only—when the user explicitly asks for comprehensive research, architecture analysis, or multi-file investigation that cannot be done with a quick search. Do NOT use for simple lookups or finding where something is defined. Research-only tool for systematic codebase…
advanced
An advanced test agent with full configuration.
basic
A simple test agent for basic functionality.
no_id
Agent without ID to test filename override.
mypy-fixer
Fixes mypy type errors and replaces Any with precise types using PEP 695 generics, TypedDicts, Protocols, and Unpack. Use after type-related QA failures.
docstring-fixer
Audits public APIs for missing or incomplete NumPy-style docstrings and writes them. Use after adding new public functions, classes, or modules.