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 s977043/PlanGate --skill plan-quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/s977043/PlanGateWrote 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/plan-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/plangate/plan-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/plangate/plan-quality-reviewer/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/plan-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/plangate/plan-quality-reviewer.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 | $0.00093 | $0.00995 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00498 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
plan-quality-reviewer 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 7d 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Quality Reviewer
本 Skill と
plan-quality-checkの違い:plan-quality-checkは実装前の内部セルフチェック（スコア返却）。 本 Skill は C-2 外部レビューの 設計妥当性レーン として R-NNN 構造化 Finding を出力する。
カテゴリ
Review / External
想定 Phase
C-2（plan ゲート外部レビュー）
役割・責務
review-principles.md §7-bis の
「設計妥当性レーン」担当として以下を担う:
| 読む | 読まない（原則） |
|---|---|
| plan.md | 実装コード |
| todo.md | テスト結果ログ |
| test-cases.md | |
| pbi-input.md |
捕捉する観点:
- plan の論理整合（Goal → Approach → Work Breakdown のつながり）
- 受入基準（AC）の網羅性・テスト可能性
- スコープ欠落（Out of scope が明示されているか）
- 既存コード構造に起因する不足は「追加 AC 候補」として返す（コードベース整合レーンへの返し）
入力
plan: <plan.md の内容>
todo: <todo.md の内容>
test_cases: <test-cases.md の内容>
pbi_input: <pbi-input.md の内容（任意）>
出力フォーマット
review-external.md 追記と互換の Finding 配列:
## Plan Quality Review — R-NNN〜R-MMM
| ID | Lane | Severity | Status | 内容 |
|----|------|---------|--------|------|
| R-001 | design | major | open | AC-02 の検証コマンドが未定義 |
| R-002 | design | minor | open | Risks セクションにロールバック手順が欠落 |
各 Finding の必須フィールド:
| フィールド | 値の例 |
|---|---|
id |
R-NNN（review-external.md 採番ルールに従う） |
lane |
design |
severity |
critical / major / minor / info |
status |
open |
body |
具体的な指摘内容（plan.md の該当箇所を引用） |
判定基準
review-principles.md §3-4 に従う:
| 判定 | 条件 |
|---|---|
| Auto-approve 相当 | critical=0, major=0 |
| Human review 推奨 | major ≥ 1 |
| Human review 必須 | critical ≥ 1 |
指摘ゼロの場合も「指摘なし（監査連続性のため）」を明示記録すること。
使い方（呼び出し例）
# C-2 フェーズで呼び出す場合
bin/plangate review TASK-XXXX --phase c2 --reviewer plan-quality-reviewer
または SKILL を直接 invoke:
/plan-quality-reviewer
入力: docs/working/TASK-XXXX/plan.md, todo.md, test-cases.md
関連
review-principles.md §7-bis— 2 レーン責務契約external-reviewer-interface.md— 接続 IF 正本plan-quality-check— 内部セルフチェック（別 Skill）review-external.schema.json— Finding スキーマ
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 102 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A 81828ec56bbf
plan-quality-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/PlanGate (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 995 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-03.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.