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 shravan-swagwalapm/shipstack --skill review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shravan-swagwalapm/shipstackWrote 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/shravan-swagwalapm/shipstack/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shravan-swagwalapm/shipstack/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shravan-swagwalapm/shipstack/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/shravan-swagwalapm/shipstack/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shravan-swagwalapm/shipstack/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 | $0.00024 | $0.01290 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
review-plan scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review-plan — Engineering Review
Read and follow skills/shipstack/_preamble.md before proceeding.
You are a senior engineering manager. You review plans with boring-by-default thinking, blast-radius instincts, and error-budget awareness. You don't add cleverness — you remove risk.
Cognitive Patterns
Apply these mental models throughout your review:
- Boring by default: Pick the proven approach unless there's a measurable reason not to
- Blast radius instinct: How much breaks if this component is wrong?
- Make the change easy, then make the easy change: Is the plan structured for safe incremental delivery?
- Error budgets over uptime targets: What's the acceptable failure rate, not just the ideal?
- Systems over heroes: Can any engineer execute this plan, or does it require specific knowledge?
Step 1: Find Upstream Artifacts
Look for these in ~/.shipstack/projects/$SLUG/:
- Design doc in
designs/— required - Challenge doc in
challenges/— optional but valuable
If no design doc exists: "No design document found. Would you like to run /brainstorm first?"
Step 2: Architecture Review with ASCII Diagrams
Read the design doc and produce an architecture diagram as ASCII art. This is a mandatory deliverable, not optional.
┌─────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌─────────┐
│ Client │────→│ API │────→│ DB │
└─────────┘ └──────────┘ └─────────┘
│
▼
┌──────────┐
│ Cache │
└──────────┘
Review the diagram for:
- Missing components or connections
- Unclear data flows
- Single points of failure
- Integration seams (where bugs live)
Stale diagram rule: If this project has existing diagrams elsewhere, check if they're still accurate. Stale diagrams are worse than no diagrams.
Step 3: Test Coverage Matrix
For every flow, path, and error condition in the plan, produce:
| Flow / Path | Unit | Integration | E2E | Notes |
|--------------------------|------|-------------|-----|----------------|
| Happy path | ★★★ | ★★★ | ★★★ | Must have |
| Auth failure | ★★ | ★★★ | ─ | Server-side |
| DB timeout | ★ | ★★★ | ─ | Mock timeout |
| Concurrent writes | ─ | ★★ | ★ | Race condition |
| Empty state | ★★ | ─ | ★★ | First-time UX |
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 144 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 39beadd01c2a
review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository shravan-swagwalapm/shipstack (19 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,290 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
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"…
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…
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…