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/xzawed/claude-grok-build-pluginWrote 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/xzawed/claude-grok-build-plugin/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/xzawed/claude-grok-build-plugin/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xzawed/claude-grok-build-plugin/plan/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/xzawed/claude-grok-build-plugin/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xzawed/claude-grok-build-plugin/plan.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00709 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
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 12d 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.
What it actually says
Call grok_build_plan with the user's task as prompt and an absolute cwd
(a relative path is refused before anything spawns). Show the returned plan summary and the billing field — a plan is a real Grok
run on the same path as delegate (with deny rules where delegate approves edits), so it carries the
same billing tag. If the result carries billingCaveat, show its message beside billing — a warning that
grok's config.toml gives some model its own key or one inherited from [model_providers.<id>] (or could not be
checked), so do not stop on it. A completed result can also carry a message — show it whenever there is one:
besides the notices below, it can say that the prompt, with any files it @-mentions or skill it invokes, was too long for
grok (its request to the model left out part of the prompt or of what grok added to it), so the plan may not cover
the whole prompt. If status is not
completed (auth_error, timeout, or grok_error), show the returned message and stop — do
not report the run as done.
⚠️ A plan is not guaranteed read-only. The run passes deny rules for the shell, edits, writes and
MCP tools (--deny Bash --deny Edit --deny Write --deny MCPTool(*)), so grok declines those calls even
when the user's own allow rules approve them; reading files still works, and a plan cannot run even
git status. grok enforces the rules, not this wrapper, and the CLI updates itself — the response
reports what happened in THIS run. Always check planWroteFiles and filesChanged
in the response: if planWroteFiles is true, tell the user the tree was modified and show
filesChanged; if it is absent, the check could not run — say so, and never report the plan as
read-only. A folder grok may have worked in could not be read, or the run continued in a folder that
was not known before it. On a completed plan the returned message says which; on a failed ending
the message starts with the failure's own text, which is not the reason, so do not present it as
the reason — only a later sentence that says the check could not be done is. planWroteFiles is
reported on every ending where it could be checked, failed ones included.
If committed is true, the plan run made a git commit (HEAD moved): show the returned message,
which names the folder whose HEAD moved and the commit it moved from, with how to inspect and undo it
there (never run those commands in another folder) — the committed files are no longer in
filesChanged. If committed is absent, the run could not be checked — do not report "no commit".
If resumedCwd is present, the plan ran in that folder, not the cwd you passed. Then use
/grok:delegate to make the change deliberately.
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +3 lines e767c2b841fb
- 17d ago Changed · +1 lines c469dd15e7e4
- 22d ago Changed · +1 lines · +7 tokens per session 4c110bc81af1
- 28d ago Changed · +10 lines a75c43c1958c
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 4899c11c2e06
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 7c1f7012e76e
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines a232ff8f9911
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 89c2bb8719b7
- 1mo ago First seen · 8 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 414086d92aca
plan is a command published in the GitHub repository xzawed/claude-grok-build-plugin (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 709 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
merge
Finish a PR properly: every check green, every review addressed — human and bot — then merge and clean up.
spec
Spec-first design: a gap-closing interview that produces a complete spec, with a quality controller that blocks until every section is answered and every question resolved.
debug
Systematic debugging: root cause before any fix, one hypothesis at a time, and a three-strikes rule that questions the architecture instead of stacking patches.
plan
Turn an approved spec into an implementation plan an engineer with zero context could execute — with a quality controller that blocks placeholders and hollow tasks.
tdd
Test-driven development with tests that actually catch breaks: red before green, name the break each test catches, and the mutation check before done.
todo
The quality-gated task list: tasks with real descriptions, testable acceptance criteria, and evidence — a task only closes when the controller agrees it is done.