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 feO2x/guided-coding --skill guided-coding-review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/feO2x/guided-codingWrote 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/feo2x/guided-coding/guided-coding-review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/feo2x/guided-coding/guided-coding-review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/feo2x/guided-coding/guided-coding-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/feo2x/guided-coding/guided-coding-review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/feo2x/guided-coding/guided-coding-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 | $0.00032 | $0.00366 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00073 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
guided-coding-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.
This is a copy
88% identical to review-plan — 7 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Review a Plan
Review the plan named by the user. If none is named, proceed only when exactly one uncommitted plan draft exists in ai-plans/; otherwise ask for its path. Report findings only; never edit the plan or any other file.
Read the plan, applicable repository instructions, the code it discusses, and every earlier document for the same issue, including legacy filenames. Verify assertions about existing types, members, files, APIs, and extension points. Do not reject files or types merely because the plan intends to create them.
Amongst other things, check for:
- Acceptance criteria: Each criterion describes an observable, verifiable outcome rather than an implementation step. Behavior changes require appropriate automated test coverage.
- Verifiability: The required feedback loops exist in repository instructions, build files, scripts, or CI configuration.
- Technical decisions: Data structures, abstractions, and framework mechanisms fit the surrounding architecture without unnecessary indirection.
- Level of detail: The plan records non-obvious decisions and interactions without prescribing routine implementation.
- Omissions: Judge relevant risks such as error handling, compatibility, migration, performance, security boundaries, and observability against the change at hand.
- History: A follow-up plan explicitly identifies and explains any earlier decisions it supersedes.
Say explicitly when there are no findings. If the plan is already frozen (timestamp in its file name and a *Frozen at ...* line below its title), note that it can no longer be edited; changes are decided in the Guiding Phase and recorded in a Follow-Up Plan.
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 Changed · -12 lines 8b2a7cb2c67e
- 1mo ago First seen · 35 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 0ac659508da8
guided-coding-review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository feO2x/guided-coding (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 366 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to review-plan, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…