Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/plugin install kc-team-opsWrote 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/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-em-plan-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-em-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-em-plan-review/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/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-em-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/kc-em-plan-review.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01582 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00791 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
kc-em-plan-review 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 7d 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
EM Plan Review
Review a teammate's plan BEFORE build starts, as the EM. The goal is not to list correct-sounding risks — it is to change the outcome: convert the load-bearing assumption from inherited to verified, find the blocker that would silently fail, and hand back a calibrated, actionable message.
Source of truth for the lenses = the user's current ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md (Conviction Calibration, Escalation Mantra, E2E-First Acceptance). This skill embeds a compact checklist; read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/em-plan-review-lens.md for the full rubric and ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/venue-format-rules.md for delivery.
Pipeline (run in order)
digraph empr {
rankdir=TB; node [shape=box];
p0 [label="P0 Ingest (MAIN convo / MCP)"];
p1 [label="P1 EM-lens review"];
p2 [label="P2 Keystone verification (real code)"];
p3 [label="P3 De-dup vs existing reviews"];
p4 [label="P4 Cross-model pressure-test (codex)"];
p5 [label="P5 Deliver (gated)"];
p0 -> p1 -> p2 -> p3 -> p4 -> p5;
}
P0 — Ingest & context (MAIN CONVERSATION ONLY)
MCP tools cannot run inside a subagent — do P0 in the main conversation.
- Pull the plan source in full:
- Linear project →
get_project(+ milestones, members) +list_issues+list_milestones+get_issue(includeRelations)on key issues to capture the dependency graph. - Also handle: a single Linear issue, a Slack thread, a design doc, a PR.
- Linear project →
- Also pull the originating discussion + any existing reviews/comments (e.g. the Slack thread that spawned the project, prior Linear comments). This input is what makes P3 possible — skip it and you will duplicate a teammate.
- If you cannot retrieve the actual plan source (wrong Linear workspace, missing access, dead link, MCP pointed elsewhere), STOP and report it — never review an imagined plan reconstructed from the request summary. A review anchored to assumptions instead of the real artifact is theater, and it manufactures false confidence at exactly the wrong moment.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 88 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 03ffd7968430
kc-em-plan-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,582 tokens. 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
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.
sdd-tasks
Break an SDD change into implementation tasks. Trigger: orchestrator launches task planning for a change.
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…
tech-debt
Track, categorize, and prioritize technical debt across the codebase. Scans for debt indicators, maintains a debt register, and recommends repayment scheduling.