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/feo2x/guided-coding/review-plannpx skills add feO2x/guided-coding --skill review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/feO2x/guided-codingWhat 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 | $0.00029 | $0.00357 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00179 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00071 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- guided-coding-review-plan — 88% identical, 7 lines differ
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, note that corrections require a follow-up plan rather than edits.
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 · 36 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 27368f6d4e6c
review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository feO2x/guided-coding (6 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 357 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…