Getting it into your agent
There is no command for this one: it runs only inside a plugin, and the catalogue could not identify which plugin ships it. The source is linked below.
Wrote 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/s977043/plangate/acceptance-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/plangate/acceptance-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/plangate/acceptance-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/s977043/plangate/acceptance-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/plangate/acceptance-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 | $0.00072 | $0.03642 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01821 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00728 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00364 |
Grade A, and why
acceptance-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 206 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Acceptance Review
実装差分と AC（受け入れ条件）を突き合わせ、適合 / 不足 / 保留 を判定する Skill。
PlanGate v8.3 では、本 Skill の出力が handoff.md § 1 の正本となる（必須 6 要素の 1 つ）。
カテゴリ
Review
想定 Phase
WF-05 Verify & Handoff
参照解決順（導入先で必ずこの順に探す）
本 Skill が参照する .claude/rules/*.md と docs/** は上流リポジトリ基準の相対パス。
導入先ではそのままでは解決できないものがあるため、次の順で探索する:
- 導入先リポジトリの相対パス（例:
.claude/rules/working-context.md）。 ただし 本 skill が参照する節（例:working-context.mdの「evidence/ の保管ルール」節）が実在することを確認する。同名でも別内容なら PlanGate の正本ではないため 2 へ進む - 無ければ plugin root 配下（例:
<plugin_root>/rules/working-context.md）。<plugin_root>は Bash でls "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/rules/"を実行して展開・確認した 絶対パス（Read ツールは絶対パスを要求し環境変数を展開しないため、${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/...という文字列をそのまま Read しない）。変数が空・未設定ならキャッシュを glob で推測せず 3 へ進む - どちらにも無い場合は 「正本
<path>を参照できなかった」と明示し、推測で内容を補わない
plugin root 配下の探索は docs/** には適用しない（手順 2 は rules/*.md 等の
配布対象にのみ適用する）: plugin が配布するのは agents / commands / skills / rules 等の
定義ディレクトリのみで docs/ を配布対象として認識せず、plugin root 配下に相当する配布物が
存在しないため必ず空振りする。docs/** は手順 1 で解決できなければ手順 2 を飛ばして手順 3 へ進む。
| 参照 | install.sh --claude 経由 |
plugin（Claude marketplace）経由 | Codex 経由 |
|---|---|---|---|
rules/*.md |
.claude/rules/ に着地（解決可） |
<plugin_root>/rules/ で解決 |
未配置（解決不可 → 手順 3 へ） |
docs/** / schemas/** |
コピー対象外（解決不可） | バンドル対象外（解決不可） | 未配置（解決不可） |
install.sh --claude のコピー対象は agents / skills / commands / rules の 4 ディレクトリ
のみ。Codex 経由（install_codex()）は install-plangate-skills.sh を呼ぶだけで skills しか
配置されないため、rules 参照は解決順 1・2 とも成立せず必ず手順 3 に落ちる。
手順 3 に落ちても判定基準は緩めない: 本 Skill の「判定基準」「禁止」節が evidence 要件の代替正本になる。evidence なき PASS は正本を参照できないことを 理由に許容してはならない（Iron Law #3 / #4）。参照できなかった正本は
handoff.md § 1に「正本<path>未参照」として明示する。
PlanGate v8.3 整合（必読）
本 Skill は v8.3 eval framework の以下 3 観点と直接結び付く。判定結果はこれらの観点ラベルで分類すること。
| eval 観点 | 出処 | release blocker |
|---|---|---|
| AC coverage | docs/ai/eval-cases/ac-coverage.md |
NO（WARN） |
| verification honesty | docs/ai/eval-cases/verification-honesty.md |
YES |
| format adherence | docs/ai/eval-cases/format-adherence.md |
YES（schema 準拠率 < 95%） |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 206 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 1553c64c6d1e
acceptance-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/PlanGate (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 3,642 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
improve
Autonomous quality improvement loop. Scores a target against a rubric, selects the highest-leverage axis, attacks it, verifies, documents, and loops. No pre-planning between iterations — each loop re-scores from scratch.
triage
GitHub issue and PR investigator. Pulls open issues/PRs, classifies them, searches the codebase for root cause or reviews contributed code, proposes fixes with file:line references, and optionally implements fixes. Use for investigating GitHub issues and reviewing PRs; do NOT use for general code review unrelated to…
01-sdlc
Autonomously orchestrates a request from framing to a draft pull request, isolating implementation, independent review, and final outcome challenge. Use when the user wants to deliver a change end to end. Not for running one development step.
00-async-dev
Drive the async-dev pipeline from one entry point, whether setup, run, or review. Use when the user wants to install async dev, run a ready issue, or address PR review comments, or on a webhook trigger. Not for plain status checks.
vue-best-practices
A review checklist for Vue 2 and Vue 3 components, covering component names, prop declarations, TypeScript casts, API styles and complex template expressions.
agents-consilium
Run external coding agents (Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, native Grok Build, Gemini) as independent reviewers, stateful repository researchers, or single-agent implementers. Use for multi-model opinions and code review, steerable Grok research, full-access delegation, long-running work, or reattaching to delegated…