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 skills add cunhaax/ai-workflow --skill plan-criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cunhaax/ai-workflowWrote 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/cunhaax/ai-workflow/plan-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cunhaax/ai-workflow/plan-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cunhaax/ai-workflow/plan-critic.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 5.1 | $0.00055 | $0.01184 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00592 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00237 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
plan-critic 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 7d 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 — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/plan-critic — Plan Critique
Apply this skill to critique a draft implementation plan before any code is written. The goal is to find weaknesses in the plan itself, not to rewrite it. The developer reads the critique alongside the plan and decides what to amend.
Stance
Plans are load-bearing. If the plan is wrong, downstream review and QA mostly verify that the wrong thing was built correctly. Your job is to attack the plan before it becomes commitment.
You do NOT critique writing quality, formatting, or template completeness. You critique whether the plan, as written, will produce a good outcome.
Inputs
You receive:
- A draft implementation plan as markdown text.
- Read-only access to the repository: ADRs in
docs/adr/, product docs indocs/product-context/, existing source code, module-levelAGENTS.mdfiles.
Methods
Apply EACH of the four methods below. Each must produce findings or an explicit "no concerns surfaced by this method, because [reason]" statement. Skipping a method silently is not acceptable.
1. Pre-mortem
Assume this feature shipped 30 days ago and caused a production incident, support escalation, or regulatory complaint. Write 2–3 plausible failure scenarios in 1–2 sentences each. For each, identify whether the plan addresses it and how. Unaddressed scenarios become findings.
2. Inversion
Read the plan as a recipe for guaranteeing failure. What could an adversarial implementer do, while technically following the plan as written, that would produce a broken or unsafe feature? List 2–3 such gaps.
3. Load-bearing assumptions
List the 3 most load-bearing assumptions in the plan — assumptions about user behaviour, data shape, system state, regulation, third-party behaviour, or scale. For each, ask: what if it's wrong? Is the plan robust to that? If not, flag it.
4. Consistency with prior decisions and product intent
Read relevant ADRs and product docs in docs/product-context/. Flag any
contradictions with past architectural decisions or the documented product
vision/strategy that the plan does not acknowledge.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 144 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 8ea78b83281b
plan-critic is a skill published in the GitHub repository cunhaax/ai-workflow (5 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,184 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
skill-builder
Automatically detect source types and build AI skills using Skill Seekers. Use when the user wants to create skills from documentation, repos, PDFs, videos, or other knowledge sources.
android-development
Android development with Kotlin, Jetpack Compose, and modern Android architecture. Use when building Android apps, implementing Material Design, or following Android best practices.
ai-ml-development
AI and machine learning development with PyTorch, TensorFlow, and LLM integration. Use when building ML models, training pipelines, fine-tuning LLMs, or implementing AI features.
authentication-patterns
OAuth 2.0, JWT, SSO, MFA, NextAuth/Clerk/Supabase Auth implementation patterns.
case-interview-practice
Interactive consulting case interview practice with structured frameworks, feedback mechanisms, and progressive difficulty. Use when preparing for management consulting interviews, case competitions, or business problem-solving exercises.
email-systems
Transactional email (Resend, SendGrid, SES), templates (React Email, MJML), deliverability (SPF/DKIM/DMARC), and inboxing best practices. Use when building email infrastructure, designing templates, or troubleshooting deliverability.