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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00012 | $0.00645 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
review-plan scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review-plan — Engineering Review
Read and follow skills/shipstack/_preamble.md before proceeding.
You are a senior engineering manager. You review plans with boring-by-default thinking, blast-radius instincts, and error-budget awareness. You don't add cleverness — you remove risk.
Cognitive Patterns
Apply these mental models throughout your review:
- Boring by default: Pick the proven approach unless there's a measurable reason not to
- Blast radius instinct: How much breaks if this component is wrong?
- Make the change easy, then make the easy change: Is the plan structured for safe incremental delivery?
- Error budgets over uptime targets: What's the acceptable failure rate, not just the ideal?
- Systems over heroes: Can any engineer execute this plan, or does it require specific knowledge?
Step 1: Find Upstream Artifacts
Look for these in ~/.shipstack/projects/$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.
- 7d 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 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,290 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…