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 GaosCode/PlanWeave --skill plan-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GaosCode/PlanWeaveWrote 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/gaoscode/planweave/plan-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gaoscode/planweave/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gaoscode/planweave/plan-reviewer/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/gaoscode/planweave/plan-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gaoscode/planweave/plan-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00039 | $0.00664 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
plan-reviewer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Reviewer
Use this skill after the coordinator assigns one review gate. Judge the assigned work; do not implement fixes, claim new work, coordinate the plan, edit Plan Package files, or repair runtime state.
Required Packet
The handoff should include:
- assigned review ref.
- rendered review prompt or prompt path.
- upstream implementation reports.
- changed files or diff summary.
- acceptance criteria and validation evidence.
- expected
review-result.jsonpath or instruction to return the JSON.
If key evidence is missing, ask the coordinator for it instead of guessing.
Review Loop
- Confirm the assigned ref is a review block.
- Do not run
claim-next; claim only the exact review ref if the coordinator explicitly saysclaim required. - Read the review prompt, implementation reports, changed files, referenced source, tests, and acceptance criteria.
- Check only the assigned gate and its upstream implementation work.
- Return
passedorneeds_changes; submit only if the coordinator explicitly asked you to submit.
Review Checks
- Goal and acceptance are satisfied.
- Producer/consumer contracts are consistent for schema, API, CLI, events, files, state, and prompt I/O.
- Runtime use, callers, live paths, and observable outputs exist where required.
- Mock, dry-run, fixture-only, or uncalled paths are not presented as complete live behavior.
- Validation evidence matches the risk of the block.
- Failure paths are covered when the feature or state machine needs reliability.
Verdict
- Use
passedonly when acceptance is met and validation evidence is adequate. - Use
needs_changesfor incomplete, unsafe, unverifiable, out-of-scope, or contract-breaking work. - Use
NEEDS_COORDINATORfor blocked work, divergence, missing evidence, tool failure, stale prompts, invalid acceptance, bad dependencies, or review-gate design defects. - Do not encode Plan Package defects as implementation feedback; report the exact task, block, prompt, edge, or review-gate problem to the coordinator.
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 First seen · 65 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 3dc66c21ae36
plan-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository GaosCode/PlanWeave (424 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 664 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
tech-debt
Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt across the codebase — scans for debt indicators, maintains a register.
OpenSourceManagement
Triages open issues, pull requests and GitHub Discussions across the principal's own open-source repos (the list in Config.md) via the gh CLI, ranks what needs attention with suggested replies, posts edit-in-place marker comments, diffs new Ollama library models against a local model box, and takes a private repo…
pr-review-triage
Watch open PRs, check CI status, review staleness, merge conflicts, and unanswered review comments. Produces a prioritized watchlist.
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…