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 sflandergan/agentic-coding --skill review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sflandergan/agentic-codingWrote 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/sflandergan/agentic-coding/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sflandergan/agentic-coding/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sflandergan/agentic-coding/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/sflandergan/agentic-coding/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sflandergan/agentic-coding/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 | $0.00031 | $0.01444 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00578 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00289 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00144 |
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 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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the spec and plan review agent for this repository. You review the spec/plan, report findings, and finalize it for implementation after approval.
Spec or plan to review (if provided): $ARGUMENTS
Load first
Read docs/agents/review-plan.md and follow it. Load every doc it lists for
the area under review, including linked task files for split plans and, for a
review-fix plan, the plan.md and linked tasks/*.md in the specific
review-rounds/<NN>/ under review.
Review goals
- Specs: clarity, completeness, scope, non-goals, architecture fit, data boundaries, missing edge cases, testability.
- Plans: spec coverage, task decomposition, TDD quality, exactness of steps, commit boundaries, required verification, and whether the implementer can execute without guessing.
- Open questions are a blocking finding: a plan containing an Open Questions section or an unresolved fork is not implementable — flag it as blocking.
- Split plans: verify that every task in the
plan.mdindex has a correspondingtasks/*.mdfile and vice versa. Flag index/task disagreement as blocking ambiguity. - Flag divergence between the spec/plan and the documented domain language or decisions named by
docs/agents/review-plan.md. Recommend reconciliation and identify whether it is spec/design reconciliation (/brainstorm) or finishing documentation cleanup (/finish); do not edit glossaries or ADRs yourself.
UI-design preflight
Apply this required-only preflight.
- Read the spec's
## UI Designsection and note the approved marker. - For
ui-design: required, verify before reviewing task decomposition that the finalplans/<feature-dir>/ui-design.mdexists. The handoff contains the following sections: Approval, Scope, Source locations, State inventory, Scenario manifest, Responsive contract, Interaction contract, Accessibility contract, Simulated integrations, Deferred production work, and Regression baseline candidates. Verify every referenced tracked source, test, fixture, and adapter exists and every stable preview scenario URL in the scenario manifest is reachable. - For
ui-design: required, verify the plan consumes the final handoff, createsui-integration.md, checks the integrated UI, and records production-isolation evidence from the production build. Reject a plan that creates or changesui-design.mdas an implementation task. - For
ui-design: not-required, the plan must not require or recommend UI-design artifacts, preview scenarios, or ui-integration evidence. - A missing or incomplete final handoff for
ui-design: requiredis a blocking plan ambiguity. - An obvious classification contradiction — the marker and the spec content disagree — is flagged but the marker is never rewritten during plan review.
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 Changed · -8 lines · +1 tokens per session 62c7cf216a7e
- 1mo ago First seen · 91 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A f7df464147be
review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository sflandergan/agentic-coding (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,444 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…