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/eestevanell/codex-planning-kit/review-issue-implementationnpx skills add EEstevanell/codex-planning-kit --skill review-issue-implementationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EEstevanell/codex-planning-kitWrote 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/eestevanell/codex-planning-kit/review-issue-implementation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eestevanell/codex-planning-kit/review-issue-implementation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eestevanell/codex-planning-kit/review-issue-implementation.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00768 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00384 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-issue-implementation 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Issue Implementation
Overview
Use this skill to verify that code changes satisfy issue cards and ExecPlans, assess regression risk, and provide a clear rating with prioritized findings. Look for implementation mistakes, things that can lead to errors, or bad practices. We do not want over engineering, nor cluttering too much. We must follow the DRY principle and the best practices and guidelines.
Inputs (required)
- ISSUE_PATH: Path to the issue card file (required).
- EXECPLAN_PATH: Path to the ExecPlan file (required).
- DIFF_RANGE: Diff range to review (optional). Default to
STAGED(staged changes) when not provided. UseWORKING_TREEfor working tree vsHEAD, or provide an explicit range (for example,main..feature-branch,<base>..<head>, or a commit hash). - Require ISSUE_PATH and EXECPLAN_PATH; ask for them if missing or ambiguous.
Inputs (optional)
- SCOPE_NOTES: Focus area or high-risk surfaces to emphasize (for example, auth, data migrations, UI flows).
- TEST_EVIDENCE: Commands run and key results, if already executed by the user.
Workflow (default)
- Intake and scope
- Collect issue card path(s), ExecPlan path(s), and the diff range (working tree vs HEAD, commit range, or branch).
- If any are missing, ask for the minimum needed to review (prefer file paths and a diff range).
- Load governing docs
- Read
AGENTS.mdandPLANS.mdfrom the repo root if they are not already in context. - Read each issue card and ExecPlan; extract explicit requirements, acceptance criteria, and any approved scope expansions.
- Read
- Diff-first review
- Use
git status,git diff --stat, andgit diff(plusgit diff --cachedif staged) to identify touched files. - Open files only to validate behavior or get precise line references.
- Use
- Requirements alignment
- Map each requirement to the actual change; mark gaps, partial coverage, or behavior mismatches.
- If a refactor or file move appears, verify explicit approval in the issue/plan; otherwise flag as scope risk.
- Risk and regression analysis
- Evaluate correctness, safety, and unintended side-effects (security, data integrity, background jobs, UI flows).
- Look for masked invalid states; changes should fail explicitly with clear errors.
- Tests and verification
- Note new/updated tests, and gaps. Highlight required checks from
AGENTS.mdif not evident.
- Note new/updated tests, and gaps. Highlight required checks from
- Output
- Produce findings first (ordered by severity, with file/line references).
- Provide rating and risk summary using the rubric in
.codex\skills\review-issue-implementation\references\review-checklist.md. - Follow with open questions/assumptions and a brief change-summary (only after findings).
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 58 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 5e0d6dd6b366
review-issue-implementation is a skill published in the GitHub repository EEstevanell/codex-planning-kit (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 768 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
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…