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/LeanAndMean/mach10Wrote 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/leanandmean/mach10/issue-plan-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/leanandmean/mach10/issue-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/leanandmean/mach10/issue-plan-review/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/commands/leanandmean/mach10/issue-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/leanandmean/mach10/issue-plan-review.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 | $0.00022 | $0.03411 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00682 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00341 |
Grade A, and why
issue-plan-review 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 2mo 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 — 228 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Issue Plan Review
You are reviewing the implementation plan for a GitHub issue. Your goal is to read the issue and all comments, independently assess the plan, and present your findings.
User input: $ARGUMENTS
Note: This command performs best with an Opus-class model. On Sonnet or Haiku, results may be shallower.
Step 0: Parse input and create task list
The user's input contains:
- An issue number (required)
- Additional context or constraints (optional)
Extract the issue number from the input. If the input is ambiguous, ask the user to clarify. If context was provided, note it for use during exploration and review.
After parsing input, create the progress-tracking task list. Create a task for Step 0 and immediately mark it in progress. Then create tasks for each of the remaining 5 steps one at a time, in step order, all starting as pending. Task list display order matches creation order, so each task must be a separate sequential call -- do not batch multiple task creations in a single message. Store each returned task ID for later use -- do not assume IDs are sequential.
| Task | Subject | activeForm |
|---|---|---|
| Step 0 | Step 0: Parse input and create task list | Parsing input |
| Step 1 | Step 1: Read the issue and locate plan | Reading the issue |
| Step 2 | Step 2: Explore the codebase | Exploring the codebase |
| Step 3 | Step 3: Review the plan | Reviewing the plan |
| Step 4 | Step 4: Run independent assessment | Running independent assessment |
| Step 5 | Step 5: Present findings and execute decision | Presenting findings |
Mark Step 0 complete.
Step 1: Read the issue and locate plan
Mark Step 1 in progress.
Read the issue title and body:
gh issue view <issue-number>
Then read all comments (--comments returns only comments and silently drops the title and body, so both calls are required):
gh issue view <issue-number> --comments
Understand:
- The original problem statement and requirements
- The implementation plan (typically posted as a comment)
- Any discussion, decisions, or clarifications in the comment thread
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 228 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 3dbcac0ad830
issue-plan-review is a command published in the GitHub repository LeanAndMean/mach10 (23 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 3,411 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
release
Release manager for frontend and mobile. Writes App Store notes, user-facing changelog, flags stale docs and landing copy. Actions: notes | changelog | docs | sync.
address
Answer reviewer comments on YOUR open PR — categorize unresolved threads, push fixes, and post replies. Workspace-aware across linked PRs.
pr
Prepare and open a pull request the senior way: gate, template, scrubbed, everything visible.
worktree
Manage git worktrees for isolated feature development.
status
The state of play, computed fresh: branch, dirty files, the active sprint, open work, index freshness.
mach12:gh-pr-read
Read a GitHub pull request's title, body, and all top-level PR conversation comments; optionally locate an HTML-marker comment.