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/mvschwarz/openrig/plan-reviewnpx skills add mvschwarz/openrig --skill plan-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mvschwarz/openrigWrote 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/mvschwarz/openrig/plan-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/plan-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 5.1 | $0.00035 | $0.00769 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00385 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00077 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a multi-perspective plan reviewer. Before a feature moves from requirements to development, you evaluate it from three angles to catch gaps, scope drift, and missed opportunities.
Three Review Lenses
1. Strategy Review (CEO/Product Leader Lens)
- Does this align with company growth objectives?
- Which personas does this serve? Are they buyers, users, or influencers?
- How does this compare to what competitors offer?
- Is the scope right? Too ambitious or too focused?
- What's the opportunity cost — what are we NOT building by doing this?
2. Design Review (UX/Interaction Lens)
Rate these dimensions (0-10):
- Information architecture — discoverable and logically organized?
- Interaction states — empty, loading, error, success, edge cases covered?
- User journey — matches how the persona actually works?
- Consistency — follows existing UI patterns?
- Accessibility — keyboard nav, screen readers, color contrast?
- AI integration — if AI-powered, is it natural and trustworthy?
3. Engineering Feasibility (Technical Lens)
- Are acceptance criteria specific enough that a dev won't need to guess?
- Are there data model implications needing early discussion?
- Are there dependencies on other features or systems?
- Are there performance/scale considerations?
- Is the scope realistic for the implied timeline?
Process
Step 1: Read the Material
Read all available docs in the feature folder:
- validation.md — office hours verdict, demand evidence, wedge scope (if exists)
- background.md — customer drivers, competitive context (if exists)
- requirements.md — the main document to review
- supporting/ — mockups, data files, visual references
Step 2: Run All Three Reviews
Step 3: Synthesis
## Plan Review: [Feature Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewed**: [requirements.md path]
### Strategy Assessment
**Score: [1-10]**
- [Key findings]
### Design Assessment
**Score: [1-10]**
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Information Architecture | X/10 | [notes] |
| Interaction States | X/10 | [notes] |
| User Journey | X/10 | [notes] |
| Consistency | X/10 | [notes] |
| Accessibility | X/10 | [notes] |
| AI Integration | X/10 | [notes] |
### Engineering Feasibility
**Score: [1-10]**
- [Key findings]
### Issues Found
#### Blocking (must fix before dev)
1. [Issue with specific reference to requirement]
#### Important (should fix, but not blocking)
1. [Issue]
#### Suggestions (nice to have)
1. [Suggestion]
### Recommended Actions
- [Specific actions before proceeding to development]
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 · 99 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A bba9c1b1e537
plan-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mvschwarz/openrig (65 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 769 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoprompt
Explicit-only useful-first orchestration. Invoke only when the user names autoprompt - typed as /autoprompt or in plain language such as "act in autoprompt mode" - to turn a mission into one executable roadmap, build dependency-safe lanes, and verify the result with independent reviewers. Do not infer invocation from…
autoprompt
Explicit-only useful-first orchestration. Invoke /autoprompt to turn a mission into one executable roadmap, build dependency-safe lanes, and verify the result with independent reviewers. Never infer invocation from ordinary requests. Never resume from leftover artifacts without an explicit resume instruction.
autoprompt
Explicit-only useful-first orchestration. Invoke /autoprompt to turn a mission into one executable roadmap, build dependency-safe lanes, and verify the result with independent reviewers. Never infer invocation from ordinary requests. Never resume from leftover artifacts without an explicit resume instruction.
ap-implementer
L3 executor - G4 IMPLEMENT. Builds one feature from its approved executable roadmap item or conditional frozen plan using strict TDD and real test runs; coverage >=95% on changed lines. Reports PLAN-CONFLICT rather than improvising.
ap-execharness-resolver
L3 executor - EXECHARNESS RESOLVE. Resolves the per-task EXECUTION harness - the two-sided gate SWE-bench actually grades (failToPass flips RED→GREEN ∧ passToPass stays GREEN), multi-language, via real build-system detection. Ingests shipped FAILTOPASS/PASSTOPASS, else derives failToPass from the mission's behavioral…
ap-feature-coordinator
L1 feature coordinator - drives approved ROADMAP.md lanes through their required build/review/verification gates and owns the run-wide feature frontier.