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 dsifry/metaswarm --skill plan-review-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dsifry/metaswarmWrote 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/dsifry/metaswarm/plan-review-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dsifry/metaswarm/plan-review-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dsifry/metaswarm/plan-review-gate/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/dsifry/metaswarm/plan-review-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dsifry/metaswarm/plan-review-gate.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 354 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00032 | $0.04083 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.02041 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00817 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00408 |
Grade A, and why
plan-review-gate 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 9d 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 — 455 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Review Gate
Core principle: No plan reaches the user without surviving independent adversarial scrutiny.
Purpose
This skill automatically activates after any implementation plan is drafted, before presenting it to the user. It spawns three independent adversarial reviewers in parallel — Feasibility, Completeness, and Scope & Alignment — each as a fresh Task() instance. ALL three must PASS. On failure, the planner incorporates feedback and resubmits to entirely fresh reviewer instances. The gate iterates until consensus or max iterations.
Activation Triggers
This skill auto-activates when:
- An implementation plan is drafted (by planner, explorer, or orchestrator)
- The
writing-plansskill completes a plan - The orchestrator's plan validation phase produces a plan for review
- User explicitly requests:
/plan-review <path-to-plan>
Do NOT use for: Trivial changes (single-file bug fixes, copy edits, config tweaks). The plan must have at least 2 work units or touch 3+ files to warrant gate review.
The 3 Adversarial Reviewers
Each reviewer is a fresh Task() instance with read-only access to the codebase. Reviewers produce binary PASS/FAIL verdicts backed by cited evidence. No suggestions — only findings.
Reviewer 1: Feasibility
Can this plan actually be executed against the real codebase?
| Check | Classification | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| File paths exist | BLOCKING if fabricated | Every file path referenced in the plan must exist (verify with glob/grep) |
| Dependency ordering correct | BLOCKING if circular or forward-ref | Work units depend only on things that exist or are created before them |
| Technical approach matches codebase | BLOCKING if incompatible | Proposed patterns, libraries, and conventions match what the codebase actually uses |
| No unstated assumptions | BLOCKING if critical | Plan does not silently depend on services, env vars, or infrastructure that doesn't exist |
| File scope realistic | WARNING | Each work unit's file scope is achievable without cascading changes |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 455 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 864016bd0f4b
plan-review-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository dsifry/metaswarm (413 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 4,083 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…
next-partial-prefetching-adoption
Turn on Partial Prefetching in a Next.js app and work through the insights it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable or adopt Partial Prefetching, flip the partialPrefetching flag, opt routes in with export const prefetch = 'partial', audit Link prefetch={true} behavior, preserve existing prefetched UI with…
chronicle
Analyze Copilot session history for standup reports, usage tips, session search, and session reindexing. Use when the user asks for a standup, daily summary, usage tips, workflow recommendations, wants to search or find past sessions by keyword/file/PR, wants to reindex their session store, or asks about deleting…