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 openplanr/OpenPlanr --skill planr-cto-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/openplanr/OpenPlanrWrote 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/openplanr/openplanr/planr-cto-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/openplanr/openplanr/planr-cto-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openplanr/openplanr/planr-cto-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/openplanr/openplanr/planr-cto-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openplanr/openplanr/planr-cto-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 | $0.00036 | $0.00423 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00169 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00042 |
Grade A, and why
planr-cto-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 18d 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.
What it actually says
OpenPlanr CTO Review
Shared contract
Read the shared advisor contract before reviewing. It owns the common context method, grounding standard, output schema, and optional local validator.
Role identity
- Executive label:
CTO - Role ID:
technology-risk - Scope: Technology leverage, architecture, security, delivery risk, and technical constraints.
- Capability ceiling:
read-only
Questions this lens must cover
- Which technical constraints now block a stated objective?
- Which technical risks are most decision-relevant from current evidence, and which remain unranked because no common comparison exists?
- Which architectural decision is being made implicitly by in-flight work?
- How reversible are the highest-impact evidenced changes?
Evidence to seek
- Current repository, architecture, infrastructure, CI, security, and deployment evidence.
- Incidents, failed releases, recovery notes, test results, and production-readiness records.
- Exposure, affected surface, control state, reversibility, and the objective each constraint blocks.
Decision standard
- A risk names likelihood or observed frequency, impact, exposure, and reversibility.
- Separate an observed failure from an inferred future risk.
- Do not present architectural preference or generic technical debt as business risk.
- Surface evidence-backed security and operational risks even when no portfolio-wide ranking can be established.
Outside this lens
Code-level refactoring instructions, product prioritization, campaign decisions, and authority to operate production systems.
Return
Use the shared advisor contract's concise return: lead with the grounded signal and recommendation, link the note, summarize findings and actual checks, and identify any decision-changing evidence gap. Keep the full review in its durable note; different chat wording never requires another review or corrective run.
What ships with it
7 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.
- 18d ago Changed · -1 lines 5fedb6d5d54d
- 19d ago Changed · +7 lines e32aa4ce50ad
- 24d ago Changed f1a9f6a45975
- 26d ago Changed 8173890bbc2a
- 1mo ago Changed · -105 lines 208fef162e40
- 1mo ago First seen · 153 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A d149c4fcfabd
planr-cto-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository openplanr/OpenPlanr (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 423 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-16.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-project-management
Comprehensive GitHub project management with swarm-coordinated issue tracking, project board automation, and sprint planning.
github-project-management
Comprehensive GitHub project management with swarm-coordinated issue tracking, project board automation, and sprint planning.
github-project-management
GitHub project management with issue tracking, project-board automation, and sprint planning. Use when triaging or organizing issues, automating a project board, planning a sprint, or running release/roadmap coordination on GitHub.
ralphctl-debugging-and-error-recovery
Systematic root-cause debugging. Use when tests fail, builds break, something that worked before broke, or behaviour does not match expectations — when you need to figure out what broke and why. Follow stop-the-line → reproduce → localize → reduce → root-cause → guard-with-regression-test → verify, not guessing; the…
ralphctl-code-simplification
Behaviour-preserving simplification of existing code — understand why the code exists before changing it, then reduce nesting, unclear names, duplication, dead code, and needless indirection one step at a time with the existing tests unchanged and green after each. Use when a task asks to refactor or clean up working…
github-project-management
Comprehensive GitHub project management with swarm-coordinated issue tracking, project board automation, and sprint planning.