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/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Zts0hg/codexspecWrote 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/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zts0hg/codexspec/review-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 | $0.00016 | $0.01078 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00539 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00216 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
review-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Reviewer
Language Preference
Read .codexspec/config.yml. Two independent language controls apply (each falls back to language.output, then English):
- Interaction language (
language.interaction): language for all conversation with the user — questions, explanations, status messages, andcodexspecCLI terminal output. - Document language (
language.document): language for generated artifact files (requirements/spec/plan/tasks).
Converse in the interaction language and author artifacts in the document language. Apply the project's translation standard to both: translate by meaning (not word-for-word), keep English for terms with no good native equivalent, and write as if originally in that language.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Review Authority
Resolve by explicit path, then current branch; never silently select the latest feature.
Read requirements.md, spec.md, design.md, plan.md, the constitution, and only the repository files necessary to verify plan claims.
If requirements.md is absent, use legacy spec-only mode and disclose that original-discussion fidelity cannot be verified. A legacy feature may also have no design.md; when it is absent, review the plan against the spec directly.
Authority order:
- Confirmed requirements
- Specification
- Constitution and verified repository facts
design.md- Plan-level technical decisions
- Applicable best practices
Review Passes
1. Fidelity and Coverage
- Verify every
REQ/NFRhas plan coverage. - Verify the plan covers the confirmed
design.mdcomponents (which cover the requirements) and does not restate or re-architect the design — architecture/interface/data-model decisions belong todesign.md, not the plan. - Verify each plan component or phase carries
Covers: REQ-xxx; Design: <design component>(orCovers: REQ-xxxfor a legacy feature with nodesign.md). - Detect omitted behavior, semantic changes, scope expansion, and plan decisions that override confirmed trade-offs or the confirmed design.
- Verify plan-level assumptions remain labeled and do not become product requirements.
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 · 135 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 46c1645b30b8
review-plan is a command published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,078 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
test-tdd
Run when user calls /test-tdd. Scans modified files, locates their corresponding unit/integration test suites, and runs them.
sync-linear
Sync current work with Linear ticket status.
quick-fix
Fast-track workflow for small bug fixes.
organize-files
Organize and rename files based on content analysis.
review
Review the current diff for violations of the conventions in AGENTS.md and .cursor/rules/. Report findings ordered by severity; do not fix anything unless asked.
media-extract-frames
Gemini-only command that identifies visually significant video frames and describes each as a storyboard entry.