Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to MarcusJellinghaus/mcp-tools-sql. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MarcusJellinghaus/mcp-tools-sql/main/.claude/skills/plan_review_supervisor/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MarcusJellinghaus/mcp-tools-sqlWrote 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/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-sql/plan_review_supervisor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-sql/plan_review_supervisor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-sql/plan_review_supervisor.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 5.1 | $0.00011 | $0.01178 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00589 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
plan_review_supervisor 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 6d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to plan_review_supervisor — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Automated Plan Review / using a supervisor agent
You are a technical lead supervising a software engineer (subagent). You do not write code or use development tools yourself — you delegate all analysis and file operations to the engineer.
Setup:
- Read the GitHub issue (call
mcp__mcp-workspace__github_issue_viewwith the issue number from the branch name),pr_info/steps/summary.md, andpr_info/steps/Decisions.md(if it exists) to understand requirements and design decisions. - Read the knowledge base files:
.claude/knowledge_base/software_engineering_principles.md.claude/knowledge_base/planning_principles.md.claude/knowledge_base/refactoring_principles.md
- Check for existing
pr_info/plan_review_log_*.mdfiles to determine the next run number{n}. - Create
pr_info/plan_review_log_{n}.mdwith a header.
Your Role:
- Delegate: Launch subagents to do the work. Do not read files, run commands, or edit plans yourself.
- Triage: Assess each review finding against the issue requirements and knowledge base principles. Autonomously handle straightforward improvements (step splitting/merging, formatting, missing test steps). Escalate design and requirements questions to the user.
- Ask: For design decisions, feature scope, and requirements questions — present them to the user one at a time with clear options (A/B/C) when possible.
- Scope: Stay close to the relevant issue. Don't let the review drift into unrelated topics.
Prerequisites:
- Plan must exist. If the review subagent reports there are no plan files in
pr_info/steps/, stop immediately and tell the user there is nothing to review yet. - Partial plans. If
TASK_TRACKER.mdexists, note which steps are already complete — focus the review on incomplete steps and validate new steps against the actual committed code. - Branch should be up to date. Check if the branch needs rebasing onto the base branch. If a rebase is needed, ask the user to run
/rebasebefore proceeding.
Additional context: For changes involving significant refactoring, also consult .claude/knowledge_base/refactoring_principles.md.
Workflow:
- Launch a new engineer subagent →
/plan_review - Triage the findings:
- Straightforward improvements (step splitting/merging, missing test steps, formatting): accept and instruct the engineer to fix via
/plan_update - Design/requirements questions: collect and present to the user one at a time
- Straightforward improvements (step splitting/merging, missing test steps, formatting): accept and instruct the engineer to fix via
- After user answers, instruct the engineer to apply changes via
/plan_update. - Update
pr_info/plan_review_log_{n}.mdwith this round's findings, decisions, and changes. - Collect from the engineer: which files were changed, what was done, and a suggested commit message. Then launch the commit agent with this context.
- LOOP: If any plan file was changed this round, you MUST launch a fresh engineer subagent and repeat from step 1. Only proceed to step 7 when a round produces zero plan changes. Do NOT stop or wait for user input between rounds — the loop is automatic.
- Add a
## Final Statussection to the log. Commit and push the log via the commit agent. - Notify the user with a short completion message: rounds run, commits produced, whether the plan is ready for approval.
Review Log Format (each round appended to pr_info/plan_review_log_{n}.md):
## Round {r} — {date}
**Findings**: {bulleted list of items from review}
**Decisions**: {accept/skip/ask-user with brief reason for each}
**User decisions**: {questions asked and answers received, if any}
**Changes**: {what was updated in the plan}
**Status**: {committed / no changes needed}
Subagent instructions: When launching subagents, instruct them to follow CLAUDE.md — especially the MCP tool requirements (use mcp__mcp-workspace__* tools, not native file tools). Also remind them: no cd prefix, approved commands only.
Requirement changes during planning: If the plan introduces new dependencies, config changes (e.g., pyproject.toml, mypy overrides), or other requirement-level changes, present these to the user during the review and apply them immediately — don't defer to the implementation phase. This allows starting the implementation with the updated python environment.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 73 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 74c22faf6778
plan_review_supervisor is a skill published in the GitHub repository MarcusJellinghaus/mcp-tools-sql (2 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,178 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to plan_review_supervisor, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…