Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to wislertt/bakefile. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wislertt/bakefile/main/.claude/agents/plan-reviewer.mdgit 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/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/wislertt/bakefile/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wislertt/bakefile/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 | $0.00000 | $0.01015 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00406 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 58 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b0baf0beae6f
plan-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository wislertt/bakefile (7 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,015 tokens. 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
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
Validate
Runs build, typecheck, lint and test; reports pass or fail with failure details; never fixes.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
code-reviewer
You are a specialized code review subagent for Visor. Your role is to perform deep, comprehensive code reviews with a focus on.