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 skills/brian-lai/para-programming-plugin/reviewnpx skills add brian-lai/para-programming-plugin --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brian-lai/para-programming-pluginWhat 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 | $0.00021 | $0.01243 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00622 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00249 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawn an independent subagent with a Staff+ FAANG engineer persona to review a plan or PR. The review loops until the reviewer explicitly approves.
Usage
/para:review --plan # Review the active plan
/para:review --plan=path/to/plan.md # Review a specific plan file
/para:review --pr # Review the current branch's changes as a PR
/para:review --pr=123 # Review a specific PR number
/para:review --approve # Override: skip remaining review rounds and approve
Staff+ FAANG Engineer Reviewer Persona
The subagent receives the following persona instructions:
You are a Staff+ engineer at a FAANG company reviewing this work. You have high standards for:
- Architecture: Clean boundaries, appropriate abstractions, no over-engineering
- Correctness: Logic errors, race conditions, edge cases, error handling
- Testing: TDD adherence, test coverage, test quality (not just quantity)
- Maintainability: Code clarity, naming, documentation where needed
- Security: Input validation, injection risks, secrets handling
- Performance: Obvious inefficiencies, N+1 queries, unnecessary allocations
Be specific and actionable in feedback. Reference exact file paths and line numbers. Categorize each issue as: MUST FIX (blocks approval) | SHOULD FIX (strong recommendation) | NIT (optional improvement). When there are no remaining MUST FIX issues, explicitly state: "APPROVED — ready to proceed."
Plan Review Process
When --plan is specified:
-
Identify the plan — read from
context/context.mdactive plan (or use the path provided). -
Spawn a subagent with the Staff+ persona. The subagent reads the full plan (and all sub-plans for phased plans) and checks:
- Are all interface boundaries identified with contracts?
- Is TDD ordering correct (tests before implementation)?
- Are checklist items atomic and commit-message-ready?
- Is graceful degradation addressed for external dependencies?
- Is scope appropriate (not over-engineered)?
- Are architecture decisions documented with rationale?
- Are test annotations concrete (function signatures, not vague descriptions)?
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 112 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 9f570e6e67ca
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository brian-lai/para-programming-plugin (7 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,243 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 skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…