Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Nam-Cheol/namba-ai. 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/Nam-Cheol/namba-ai/main/.agents/skills/namba-plan-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Nam-Cheol/namba-aiWrote 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/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-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/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-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 | $0.00024 | $0.00980 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00490 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
namba-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 12d 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 — 35 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
State effect: mutating workflow entry point. Use help/probe paths read-only, and otherwise expect repository state or GitHub state to change.
Generated instruction contract for this command skill:
- Purpose: keep the role or command scope explicit, bounded, and testable.
- Boundary: honor read-only versus mutating state effects, configured sandbox mode, and assigned file or workflow ownership.
- Required output: report concrete actions, changed paths or artifacts, validation evidence, and pass/fail status or blockers.
- Pass/fail criteria: claim success only when acceptance criteria and configured validation are satisfied; otherwise name the exact blocker and impact.
- Evidence expectations: cite source artifacts such as SPEC files,
.namba/configs, diffs, test output, PR/check links, or generated manifests instead of relying on unsupported assertions. - Security responsibilities: never expose or commit secrets; treat auth, privacy, destructive commands, permission changes, and external network or credential use as security-sensitive.
- Destructive command and escalation policy: do not run destructive commands unless explicitly requested; request approval for privileged, networked, or sandbox-blocked actions only when the active approval mode allows it, and otherwise report the blocker or use a safe non-escalating path.
- Fallback implementer boundary: if a specialist path is unavailable and the main/default implementer takes over, stay within the assigned scope and preserve the same evidence and validation duties.
- Portability: keep durable guidance non-project-specific unless the current repository config or SPEC explicitly provides the project detail.
Use this skill when the user explicitly says $namba-plan-review, asks to create a SPEC and run the full pre-implementation review loop, or wants namba plan plus the review flow bundled into one skill.
Behavior:
- Resolve the target SPEC from an explicit
SPEC-XXX; otherwise create the next SPEC withnamba planfor feature work,namba harnessfor reusable agent/skill/workflow/orchestration work, ornamba fix --command planfor bugfix planning. - When creating a new SPEC from a user request, inherit the same clarification gate as
$namba-plan: ask first and do not run the CLI while the raw request is still vague, short, or missing Goal/Scope/Constraints/Acceptance. - Prefer the installed
nambaCLI for the SPEC-creation step when it is available; keep.namba/as the source of truth if you need to do the setup manually. - Inherit the same safe-by-default planning branch contract as
namba plan: create or switch to the dedicatedspec/...branch in the current workspace by default, treat--current-workspaceas the explicit current-branch escape hatch, and do not create planning worktrees. - Read
.namba/specs/<SPEC>/spec.md,plan.md, andacceptance.mdbefore launching reviews or revising the planning artifacts. - Launch product, engineering, and design review passes in parallel when subagent routing is available, using
$namba-plan-pm-review,$namba-plan-eng-review, and$namba-plan-design-reviewas the three authoritative review tracks. - Prefer
namba-product-manager,namba-planner, andnamba-designerfor the three review tracks, and usenamba-plan-revieweras the aggregate validator when custom-agent routing is available. - After the three review tracks finish, run an aggregate validation pass over
spec.md,plan.md,acceptance.md, and.namba/specs/<SPEC>/reviews/*.mdto check coverage gaps, contradictions, and whether the advisory readiness state is credible. - If the aggregate validator finds issues, revise the SPEC or review artifacts directly, rerun only the affected review tracks, and repeat the validation loop instead of restarting every pass blindly.
- Refresh
.namba/specs/<SPEC>/reviews/readiness.mdafter each review and validation cycle so the advisory summary stays current. - Before ending, inspect
.namba/specs/<SPEC>/reviews/readiness.md; if it does not sayCleared reviews: 3/3, do not report the review loop as complete. Continue the review loop when useful, or make the final next-work item explicitly name$namba-plan-review SPEC-XXXor the missing individual review skills to run next. - Keep the loop bounded and explicit: stop when the readiness state is clear enough to proceed or when the remaining blockers are concrete enough that another loop would be redundant.
- Keep the whole flow advisory by default; missing depth or blockers should be visible, not silently converted into a hard gate.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 35 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A aab17b30c143
namba-plan-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Nam-Cheol/namba-ai (11 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 980 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
agf
Find local coding-agent sessions, inspect bounded metadata or summaries, and prepare a read-only resume plan with AGF. Use for finding prior work across agent CLIs, not for executing agents, deleting sessions, or reading full transcripts.
dynamic-resources
Example skill loaded from resourcesdiscover.
repo-hygiene
Use when the scheduled repo-hygiene workflow runs from GitHub Actions (or an operator dry-run) to scan the repository for small, certain docs/test/code hygiene issues and fix them as one batched branch.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
bundle-safety
Bundle transform safety — minification variant selection, consumer-constraint verification, identifier preservation, and namespace re-export coverage for build output.