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 romiluz13/cc10x --skill plan-review-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc10xWrote 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/romiluz13/cc10x/plan-review-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/plan-review-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/plan-review-gate/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/romiluz13/cc10x/plan-review-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/plan-review-gate.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00032 | $0.02096 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00838 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00419 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00210 |
Grade A, and why
plan-review-gate 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 1mo 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Review Gate
Core principle: No execution plan or decision RFC reaches the user without surviving adversarial scrutiny. No leniency. "Close enough" is FAIL. A structurally neat but repo-wrong plan is FAIL.
How it works: This skill runs inline in the calling agent's context (no subagents). The calling LLM acts as an independent auditor, reads the saved artifact, and checks it against 3 criteria using Read/Grep/Glob. The value is fail-closed blocking and adversarial framing, not reviewer isolation — keep the auditor posture, but do not claim independence the gate doesn't have.
When to Skip
Skip when artifact is truly trivial: Single-file fix, copy edit, or config tweak with <3 changes and no architecture choice → return SPEC_GATE_PASS immediately.
The 3 Checks (Run in Sequence)
Check 1: Feasibility — Can this be executed against the real codebase?
Run these verifications using Read/Grep/Glob:
| Criterion | How to verify | Blocking if |
|---|---|---|
| Artifact file exists on disk | Glob(pattern="{plan_file_path}") where plan_file_path is the path from the calling agent's context |
Returns 0 matches |
| File paths exist | Glob(pattern="{path}") for every referenced file |
Any path returns 0 matches and doesn't exist |
| Codebase reality check is present | Read artifact for Codebase Reality Check |
Non-trivial plan omits repo-grounded verification of existing code |
| Dependency ordering | Read plan phases — do later phases depend on earlier ones only? | Circular or forward-reference dependencies |
| Technical approach matches codebase | Read 1-2 existing files in the affected area | Proposed patterns/libs differ from what codebase actually uses |
| No unstated infra assumptions | Read plan for external services, env vars, DBs | Plan silently assumes infra that doesn't exist |
| No invented or unverified file/module assumptions | Compare claimed touched surfaces to repo reality | Artifact presents guessed files/modules as verified facts |
| Plan mode fits the task | Read request + artifact: direct, execution_plan, or decision_rfc |
Request changes ≥3 files or any contract/schema/auth surface while mode is direct; or request asks for a decision between alternatives and mode is not decision_rfc |
| Verification rigor fits risk | Check verification_rigor against the requested work |
Critical-path work is missing critical_path rigor or claims proof it never defined |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 140 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 487e04f979cf
plan-review-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (165 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 2,096 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
push-ci
Push to remote and monitor CI. Validates branch safety, executes git push WITH explicit user approval, then monitors CI run status via gh CLI. Use when: user says 'push', 'push and watch CI', 'ship it', 'push-ci'. Not for: committing (use /smart-commit), creating PRs (use /create-pr), merging (use /merge-prep).
create-request
Create, update, or scan per-task request tickets for progress tracking. These are date-prefixed non-lifecycle docs under requests/, NOT feature-level requirements (use /req-analyze for those). Use when: tracking task progress, updating completion status, scanning incomplete requests, checking request status dashboard.…
gh-stack
Native stacked pull requests through the github/gh-stack extension. Detects the extension, installs it only after the user approves, resolves the branch chain, and executes gh stack link / gh stack push / gh stack submit --auto under a per-use AskUserQuestion gate. Use when: opening or refreshing a native stack of…
smart-rebase
Smart partial rebase for squash-merge repositories. Auto-detect which commits to keep/drop when base branch was squash-merged into target. Use when: user says 'rebase', 'partial rebase', 'base already merged', 'smart rebase', or /smart-rebase. Not for: simple git rebase (the developer runs it — no skill executes…
adr
Write an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) for a feature — Context / Decision / Status / Consequences / Alternatives, filed as docs/features/ /adr- - .md with a 3-digit zero-padded number. Handles the Superseded case: bidirectional linking when a new ADR replaces an old one. Use when: recording why an architectural…
remind
A correction helper that checks which project rules or required steps were missed and loads the relevant guidance.