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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/plan-and-reviewnpx skills add JeremyDev87/codingbuddy --skill plan-and-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JeremyDev87/codingbuddyWrote 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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/plan-and-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/plan-and-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/plan-and-review.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 | $0.00029 | $0.01028 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00514 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
plan-and-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 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 — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan and Review
Overview
Create implementation plans and validate them through automated review before execution. This skill combines the writing-plans methodology with plan-reviewer agent dispatch to catch quality issues (missing file paths, vague acceptance criteria, scope gaps, TDD omissions) before any code is written.
Announce at start: "I'm using the plan-and-review skill to create and validate the implementation plan."
Core principle: No plan reaches execution without passing review. Critical/High findings must be resolved first.
The 4 Phases
Phase 1: Create Plan → Phase 2: Review → Phase 3: Revise (if needed) → Phase 4: Approved
Phase 1: Create Plan
Use the writing-plans methodology to create the implementation plan.
- Invoke the writing-plans skill (superpowers:writing-plans or equivalent)
- Follow all writing-plans requirements:
- Bite-sized tasks (2-5 minutes each)
- Exact file paths for all changes
- TDD structure (Red-Green-Refactor) for core logic
- Complete code in plan (no placeholders)
- Alternatives exploration for non-trivial decisions
- Save plan to
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
Phase 2: Dispatch Plan Reviewer
Dispatch the plan-reviewer agent as a subAgent to review the plan.
- Dispatch plan-reviewer using the Agent tool:
subagent_type: "general-purpose" prompt: | You are the Plan Reviewer agent. Review the implementation plan at docs/plans/<plan-file>.md against the original spec/issue. Review checklist: - File paths: All paths valid (Modify files exist, Create paths have valid parents) - Acceptance criteria: Specific, measurable, verifiable (no vague terms) - Scope alignment: Plan matches spec — no scope creep, no missing items - TDD compliance: Red-Green-Refactor for core logic tasks - Backward compatibility: Breaking changes documented with migration steps Output a severity-rated findings table: | Finding | Location | Severity | Recommendation | End with Review Summary showing counts per severity and verdict: APPROVED (Critical=0 AND High=0) or REVISE REQUIRED. - Collect the review results
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 · 116 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 1a3690000960
plan-and-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository JeremyDev87/codingbuddy (31 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,028 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…
ring:exploring-codebases
Exploring a codebase across phases: scopes the target, detects architecture, components, and layers, deep-dives each discovered perspective, then synthesizes findings into actionable guidance with file:line evidence. Use to understand how a feature or system works before planning changes, or to orient on an unfamiliar…
ring:auditing-dependency-security
Auditing a dependency for supply-chain risk before install (pip/npm/go/cargo): checks typosquatting, maintainer/age risk, vulnerability DBs (OSV, GHSA, Socket), and lockfile hash pinning, then emits a risk score and approve/conditional/escalate/block decision. Use when adding or updating a dependency, reviewing a…
ring:checking-frontend-quality
Checking frontend quality against changed UI via ring:qa-frontend in accessibility, visual, e2e, or performance mode and aggregating pass/fail verdicts. Use when a frontend change needs standalone a11y, visual-snapshot, Playwright e2e, or Lighthouse/Core-Web-Vitals validation outside the dev cycle. Skip for…
bzdesignprompt
为前端或网页设计任务选择并下载合适的 DESIGN.md 模板。当用户需要网页设计模板、UI 风格参考、设计系统、落地页或前端界面设计时,浏览长亭百智云 UI 设计模板库,根据产品场景和视觉偏好匹配模板,并将完整 DESIGN.md 保存到项目中。.
verify-quality
Verify code quality including naming conventions, organization, documentation, and general best practices. Use when asked to "verify quality", "check code quality", or "review code organization".