Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Ryan-M-Frank/volley/plugin install volleyWrote 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/ryan-m-frank/volley/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ryan-m-frank/volley/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ryan-m-frank/volley/review-plan/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/ryan-m-frank/volley/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ryan-m-frank/volley/review-plan.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 | $0.00062 | $0.01280 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00640 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00256 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
review-plan scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/volley:review-plan
Hand a plan to Codex. Get back a review. Write it to disk, show it inline.
Steps for Claude
-
Verify .volley/ is initialized and the lock allows Claude to act.
[ -d .volley ] || { echo "ERROR: .volley/ not found. Run /volley:setup first." >&2; exit 1; } [ -f .volley/STATE ] || { echo "ERROR: .volley/STATE not found. Run /volley:setup first." >&2; exit 1; } . "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/lib.sh" volley_state_assert_active .volley/STATE claude || exit 1If the assert fails, the helper already printed a refusal message. Stop.
-
Resolve the plan path.
- If user passed a path argument, use it.
- Otherwise:
ls -t .planning/**/PLAN.md 2>/dev/null | head -1(or use Glob tool with pattern.planning/**/PLAN.mdand take the most recent by mtime). - If no plan found, tell user "No PLAN.md found under .planning/. Pass an explicit path, or check that you've run /gsd:plan-phase to create one." and stop.
-
Read the plan and HANDOFF.
- Read the plan file's full content.
- Read
.volley/HANDOFF.mdfor acceptance criteria.
-
Build the review prompt for Codex.
The prompt to send via
mcp__codex__codex(the only Codex session-start tool the MCP server exposes; older docs may saymcp__codex__reviewormcp__codex__exec- those names are wrong):You are reviewing an implementation plan. Be specific and concrete. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (from HANDOFF.md): <paste HANDOFF.md content> PLAN TO REVIEW: <paste plan content> Provide your review in this format: ## Verdict APPROVE | CONCERNS | REJECT ## Strengths - (specific things the plan gets right) ## Concerns - (specific issues, with file/line refs from the plan if applicable) ## Suggested changes - (concrete edits, not vague advice) Keep it under 500 words. Skip filler. -
Resolve the review role's model/effort/context from config. Read
.volley/config.json(parse it yourself; absent = defaults). Takecodex.review.model,codex.review.reasoningEffort, and apply any.volley/local.jsonmodelOverrides.review. Checkcontext.requiredfiles all exist - if any is missing, stop with a clear error naming the file (fail early). Note whichcontext.optionalfiles exist; missing optional files are reported and skipped.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 88 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 4bd06c2ae9c2
review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository Ryan-M-Frank/volley (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,280 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
delegate
Let Claude Architect route a versioned implementation spec through the trusted MCP runtime, independently review the Candidate Artifact, record a decision, and integrate only accepted bytes. Use for implementation delegation, Producer selection, or commitment-boundary review.
semantic-search
Zero-dependency TF-IDF search across MUSE memory, roles, and skills. Use when user wants to find information across their project context.
receiving-code-review
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
codex
Run the Codex CLI directly in the user's checkout for code analysis, refactoring, or automated editing without Claude Architect's verified delegation lifecycle.
commit
A guided process for committing code changes to Git. It checks the working tree, follows a conventional commit format, links a task when available, reviews the changes, and asks for approval.
x-multi-llm-align
A review process in which two sub-agents examine an API, data format, event schema, or workflow from their separate implementation perspectives. The user passes documents and feedback between them over multiple rounds.