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 rijuvashisht/Magneto --skill plan-eng-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rijuvashisht/MagnetoWrote 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/rijuvashisht/magneto/plan-eng-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rijuvashisht/magneto/plan-eng-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rijuvashisht/magneto/plan-eng-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/rijuvashisht/magneto/plan-eng-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rijuvashisht/magneto/plan-eng-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00549 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
plan-eng-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 11d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/plan-eng-review — Eng Manager Architecture Review
Role: Eng Manager
Inputs: plan.md
Outputs: appends to plan-reviews.md, creates test-plan.md
Audit actions: plan-eng-review.scored, plan-eng-review.test_matrix_drafted
What This Skill Does
Hard-engineering review of the plan. Forces hidden assumptions into the open. Produces a concrete test matrix.
The Protocol
Step 1: Extract call graph from plan + Magneto graph
For each modified/created file, determine:
- Incoming callers (from
magneto graph neighbors <node>) - Outgoing dependencies
- Community context
Draw an ASCII diagram in the review:
┌──────────────┐
REQ ──│ AuthService │──> Database
│ │──> AuditLog
│ (god node) │
└──────────────┘
↑
│ called by
18 files
Step 2: Score on engineering dimensions
| Dimension | 0-10 |
|---|---|
| Architecture clarity | |
| Failure mode coverage | |
| Test strategy | |
| Migration safety | |
| Observability | |
| Security posture | |
| Performance |
Step 3: Build test matrix → test-plan.md
# Test Plan — Sprint <id>
| # | Test | Type | Covers (req-id) | Happy/Edge/Failure |
|---|------|------|-----------------|---------------------|
| 1 | ... | unit | REQ-042 | happy |
| 2 | ... | integration | REQ-042 | failure (503 from upstream) |
| 3 | ... | e2e | REQ-045 | edge (expired token) |
## Failure Modes
1. Upstream 5xx — retry with jitter, cap at 3 attempts
2. Partial writes — idempotency key required
## Security Concerns
- Auth token handling in logs: redact via existing logger.redact()
- CSRF for POST endpoints: uses middleware in src/middleware/csrf.ts
## Observability
- New metrics: auth.attempt, auth.success, auth.fail{reason}
- New traces: span per request via OpenTelemetry
- New logs: structured with requestId, userId
Emit audit: magneto audit add plan-eng-review.test_matrix_drafted --payload '{"testCount":N}'.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 78 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c8e7b844540a
plan-eng-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rijuvashisht/Magneto (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 549 tokens. 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
bootstrap-repo-analysis
First-time analysis of a repository with no prior reviewer outcomes. Crawl historical merged-PR review feedback with the gh CLI (plus any preloaded samples), extract the team's review norms, and synthesize the initial per-repo review-style prompt. Use this for a cold-start repo; use continual-learning instead once the…
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
oracle
Oracle second-model review: bundle prompts/files, debug, refactor, design.
chrome-cdp
Drive a headless Chrome over the Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP) for browser QA — navigate, click, fill forms, read the DOM/accessibility tree, screenshot, and assert. Use whenever a task requires loading a web page and interacting with it like a user. Chrome is launched by a bash step (recipe below); this skill…
coding-standards
Universal coding standards, best practices, and patterns for TypeScript, JavaScript, React, and Node.js development.
review-work
Quality gate: verify each acceptance criterion of a completed task/work unit, run quality checks, and create follow-up tasks for gaps. Use before merging or to audit delivered work. Invoked as /agiflow:review-work . Uses getworkunit, gettask, updatetask, createtask, createtaskcomment.