Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add AppsVortex/arness/plugin install arn-codeWrote 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/skills/appsvortex/arness/arn-code-review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/appsvortex/arness/arn-code-review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/appsvortex/arness/arn-code-review-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/skills/appsvortex/arness/arn-code-review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/appsvortex/arness/arn-code-review-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 | $0.00112 | $0.02340 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00936 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00468 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00234 |
Grade A, and why
arn-code-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 217 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Arness Review Plan
Validate and review a structured project plan for completeness, correctness, and pattern compliance before execution. Reports issues with severity classification and actionable fix suggestions, offers interactive remediation, and optionally proceeds to task creation.
Workflow
Step 1: Load the Project
Read the project's CLAUDE.md and look for a ## Arness section. Extract:
- Plans directory — base path where project plans are saved
- Code patterns — path to the directory containing stored pattern documentation
- Template path — path to the report template set (JSON templates)
If ## Arness is not found: inform the user: "Arness is not configured for this project yet. Run /arn-planning to get started — it will set everything up automatically." Do not proceed.
Ask the user for PROJECT_NAME if not provided in the conversation.
Read all project files from <plans-dir>/<PROJECT_NAME>/:
<plans-dir>/<PROJECT_NAME>/
├── SOURCE_PLAN.md
├── INTRODUCTION.md
├── TASKS.md
├── PROGRESS_TRACKER.json
└── plans/PHASE_*.md
If any critical files are missing (SOURCE_PLAN.md, INTRODUCTION.md, TASKS.md, or any PHASE_*.md), report the missing files immediately. Do not attempt to run checks against missing files — instead, note the missing file as an ERROR finding and continue checking the files that do exist.
Step 2: Run Structural and Document Checks
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/arn-code-review-plan/references/validation-checks.md and execute all generic checks (sections 1-4, 6-8) against the project files.
Classify each finding by severity:
- ERROR — Must fix before execution (missing files, broken dependencies, placeholder content)
- WARNING — Likely problems that should be addressed (missing patterns, incomplete coverage)
- INFO — Suggestions for improvement (optional enhancements)
For each finding, record:
- Check ID — the identifier from validation-checks.md (e.g., S001, I010, T015)
- Severity — ERROR, WARNING, or INFO
- Description — what the check found
- File — which project file the finding applies to
- Location — line number or section name within the file
- Suggestion — an actionable fix description
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 217 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A 2b3876662394
arn-code-review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository AppsVortex/arness (33 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 2,340 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 skills, from other repositories
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
triage
Triages a PR comment — from a bot (Copilot, CI) or a human reviewer. Routes to the triagehelper.py helper for identity checks, thread snapshotting, isolated-worktree fixes, and publish/reply/resolve mechanics; you classify the finding and apply a justified fix. --dry-run is fully read-only (investigation and a printed…
pr-review
Comprehensive PR review across six dimensions — cost impact, environment drift, ownership gaps, SOC 2 compliance, deprecated API / version hygiene, and rollback feasibility. Each mode inspects the diff and current file state, reports findings with severity, and recommends concrete fixes. Use when preparing a PR for…
genshijin-review
A compact pull-request review format that writes one actionable finding per line in Japanese or English.
pr-review
Use when the user wants to deeply review a pull/merge request or a local diff — "review this PR", "grill the MR", "stress-test this diff", "deep-dive code review", "code review before merge", or when they name a PR/MR URL, number, branch, commit range (A..B/A...B), tag or SHA. Works on GitHub (gh), GitLab (glab), or a…