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 jstoup111/ai-conductor --skill plan-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jstoup111/ai-conductorWrote 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/jstoup111/ai-conductor/plan-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/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/jstoup111/ai-conductor/plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/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 | $0.00047 | $0.00802 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00321 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
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 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Judge the final plan against the target worktree's real source after /coherence-check and before
land. This is an adversarial, source-grounded review: deterministic candidate rows are prompts for
judgment, never findings by themselves. Return only findings the supplied evidence supports; the
engine owns dispatch, schema validation, artifact rendering, operator dispositions, and land
enforcement.
Run only for Medium and Large work. For Small work, do not create a review artifact or substitute this review for the plan's §7b contradiction review.
Read-only review
This reviewer is read-only. It MUST NOT write or edit any worktree file, generated artifact, operator-decision store, configuration, or source; it MUST NOT stage or commit. Do not run tests, builds, formatters, or commands that modify project state. Inspect the supplied artifacts and source through the read-only session, then return the terminal structured result requested by the engine.
Inputs and evidence
Use the supplied stories, every plan task, relevant ADR Decision sections, coherence artifact,
candidate rows, and the target worktree source. ADR DECISIONS contains the decisions changed by
the spec. INDEX lists the remaining in-scope decisions and coherence artifact by path; read each
indexed item from its listed worktree path before relying on it. Assess the final plan rather than
reconstructing candidate generation or routing.
Every finding needs concrete evidence. Record a feasibility finding citing the source file:line
when a planned input differs from what production passes. Quote both passages for every
contradiction. An ungrounded suspicion is advisory at most: do not promote it to significant or
blocking merely because it sounds plausible.
Candidate lenses
Judge every supplied candidate under these lenses:
- test-impact: an existing test references a path or identifier a task changes, but no task updates that test.
- reachability: a planned export or primitive has no production caller in source and no task that supplies one.
- dependency-order: a task needs a path, export, or identifier that only a task outside its dependency closure introduces.
- feasibility: a planned step cannot work against the actual source, including when its planned input differs from the value production really passes.
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +2 lines 105b313b795d
- 14d ago First seen · 73 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A da05555df020
plan-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jstoup111/ai-conductor (7 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 802 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 2026-10-15.
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"…
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…
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…
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…