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 juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins --skill review-fixes-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juanmhidalgo/claude-pluginsWrote 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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/review-fixes-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/review-fixes-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/review-fixes-plan/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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/review-fixes-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/review-fixes-plan.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 | $0.00035 | $0.00633 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
review-fixes-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 10d 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Fixes Plan
Standard format for tracking code review issues and their resolution.
When to Use
- After
/code-review/branchto create actionable fix list - After
/code-review/triageto document verified issues - When planning fixes for a feature branch
- To track implementation progress across sessions
File Naming Convention
docs/review-fixes-{branch-name}.md
Or in project root:
REVIEW_FIXES.md
Template
See template.md for the full template with all sections.
Key sections:
- YAML frontmatter (type, branch, feature, pr, status)
- Progress summary table
- Issues by priority (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
- Implementation log
- Post-merge monitoring checklist
Priority Guidelines
CRITICAL
- Security vulnerabilities
- Data loss/corruption risks
- Blocking bugs that break functionality
- Migration issues that could fail in production
HIGH
- N+1 queries affecting performance
- Race conditions
- Missing validation on important fields
- Memory issues in bulk operations
MEDIUM
- Code inconsistencies
- Missing indexes (non-critical paths)
- Deprecated API usage
- Code duplication
LOW
- Style improvements
- Documentation gaps
- Refactoring opportunities
- Nice-to-have optimizations
Best Practices
- One issue per section - Keep issues atomic and focused
- Include solution code - Makes implementation faster
- Add file paths with lines - Easy navigation
- Preserve ref_id from triage - Enables auto-resolving on GitHub
- Update progress table - Track completion at a glance
- Use implementation log - Document decisions and blockers
- Add post-merge monitoring - Don't forget to verify in prod
Integration with Other Commands
/code-review/branch→ identifies issues/code-review/triage→ adds verified AI feedback issues (includes ref_id)/code-review/fixes-plan→ creates/updates this document/code-review/implement-fix→ implement fixes/code-review/mark-fixed→ verify and mark as fixed/code-review/resolve-fixed→ resolve GitHub threads for fixed issues- Post-merge → verify monitoring items
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 101 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A f8fe301897de
review-fixes-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 633 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…