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 mgiovani/cc-arsenal --skill review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mgiovani/cc-arsenalWrote 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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-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 | $0.00127 | $0.00911 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00051 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
review-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 22d 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Plan
Attack an implementation plan before it becomes code. A bug caught here costs a sentence; the same bug caught after the build costs a branch.
Stance
Assume the plan is wrong. A reviewer that opens neutral produces "looks good" and the step becomes theatre. The plan's author already believes it works, so your job is the other half.
You are reviewing the plan, not the author, and not the ticket. Do not restate what the plan says. Do not suggest a rewrite. Report what breaks.
What you do not get, and why
You get the plan and the repository. You do not get the planner's reasoning or its transcript. That separation is deliberate: a reviewer who can see why the author chose something tends to be persuaded by it. Judge the plan against the code, not against its own justification.
Method
Work in this order; the early steps are where the real findings are.
| Step | Focus |
|---|---|
| 1. Check the plan's claims against the repo | Every file it names: does it exist? Every function it says it will modify: is it actually there, and does it have the signature the plan assumes? Plans routinely target an architecture the author imagined. This single check finds more blockers than everything below it. |
| 2. Run the ordering | Does step N depend on something step N+1 creates? Does any step assume state a previous step did not establish? |
| 3. Find the second run | Most plans work once. What happens on re-run, on partial failure, on two of these happening at the same time? Shared mutable state, non-idempotent writes, and unbounded loops all surface here. |
| 4. Interrogate the verification | The plan claims something proves it worked. Would that check actually fail if the change were wrong? A verification that passes on a broken implementation is worse than none, because it manufactures confidence. |
| 5. Look for the unstated assumption | Credentials, network, migrations, ordering guarantees, someone else's schema. What has to be true that nobody wrote down? |
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 22d ago Changed · -1 lines 4a926b5d82d3
- 1mo ago Changed · -7 lines 0959610f3900
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines a5f8eff3301b
- 1mo ago First seen · 83 lines · 127 tokens per session scan A 3a0a3afcd671
review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository mgiovani/cc-arsenal (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 127 tokens to every session and 911 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
basic-skill
Summarize small CSV files and identify the highest revenue month.
trace-and-isolate
Applies systematic tracing and isolation techniques to pinpoint exactly where a bug originates in code. Use when a bug is hard to locate, code is not working as expected, an error or crash appears with unclear cause, a regression was introduced between recent commits, or you need to narrow down which component…
verification-gates
Creates explicit validation checkpoints (verification gates) between project phases to catch errors early and ensure quality before proceeding. Use when the user asks about quality gates, milestone checks, phase transitions, approval steps, go/no-go decision points, or preventing cascading errors across a multi-step…
testing-anti-patterns
Reviews test code to identify and fix common testing anti-patterns including flaky tests, over-mocking, brittle assertions, test interdependency, and hidden test logic. Flags bad patterns, explains the specific defect, and provides corrected implementations. Use when reviewing test code, debugging intermittent or…
test-patterns
Applies proven testing patterns — Arrange-Act-Assert (AAA), Given-When-Then, Test Data Builders, Object Mother, parameterized tests, fixtures, spies, and test doubles — to help write maintainable, reliable, and readable test suites. Use when the user asks about writing unit tests, integration tests, or end-to-end…
handoff-protocols
Manages work transitions between team members or agents by creating structured handoff documents, summarizing project status, documenting key decisions, blockers, and open questions, and generating onboarding briefs. Use when someone needs to hand off, hand over, or transition a project; pass work to another person or…