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 commands/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/validate_plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplaceWrote 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/commands/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/validate_plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/validate_plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace/validate_plan.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 | $0.00011 | $0.01114 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00557 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
validate_plan 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 5d 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
94% identical to validate_plan — 7 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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validate Plan
You are tasked with validating that an implementation plan was correctly executed, verifying all success criteria and identifying any deviations or issues.
Initial Setup
When invoked:
-
Determine context - Are you in an existing conversation or starting fresh?
- If existing: Review what was implemented in this session
- If fresh: Need to discover what was done through git and codebase analysis
-
Locate the plan:
- If plan path provided, use it
- Otherwise, search recent commits for plan references or ask user
-
Gather implementation evidence:
# Check recent commits git log --oneline -n 20 git diff HEAD~N..HEAD # Where N covers implementation commits # Run comprehensive checks cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) && make check test
Validation Process
Step 1: Context Discovery
If starting fresh or need more context:
-
Read the implementation plan completely
-
Identify what should have changed:
- List all files that should be modified
- Note all success criteria (automated and manual)
- Identify key functionality to verify
-
Spawn parallel research tasks to discover implementation:
Task 1 - Verify database changes: Research if migration [N] was added and schema changes match plan. Check: migration files, schema version, table structure Return: What was implemented vs what plan specified Task 2 - Verify code changes: Find all modified files related to [feature]. Compare actual changes to plan specifications. Return: File-by-file comparison of planned vs actual Task 3 - Verify test coverage: Check if tests were added/modified as specified. Run test commands and capture results. Return: Test status and any missing coverage
Step 2: Systematic Validation
For each phase in the plan:
- Check completion status:
- Look for checkmarks in the plan (- [x])
- Verify the actual code matches claimed completion
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 166 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A aded6f84ced9
validate_plan is a command published in the GitHub repository hoblin/claude-ruby-marketplace (37 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,114 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to validate_plan, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
sm-buff
You usually don't run buff directly — run sm sail. sm sail drives the whole PR to green and calls buff watch / triage for you, stopping only when it needs you to act (see /sm-sail). Reach for sm buff here only for surgical work: inspecting a specific failure, or resolving a single review thread when sail has parked on…
document-project
Document brownfield projects for AI context. Use when the user says ""document this project"" or ""generate project docs"".
sm-swab
Run slop-mop's iterative development loop for this repository.
create-architecture
Create architecture solution design decisions for AI agent consistency. Use when the user says ""lets create architecture"" or ""create technical architecture"" or ""create a solution design"".
create-prd
Create a PRD from scratch. Use when the user says ""lets create a product requirements document"" or ""I want to create a new PRD"".
quick-spec
Very quick process to create implementation-ready quick specs for small changes or features. Use when the user says ""create a quick spec"" or ""generate a quick tech spec"".