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 tobihagemann/turbo --skill review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turboWrote 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/tobihagemann/turbo/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/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/tobihagemann/turbo/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/review-plan.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00050 | $0.01442 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00721 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $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 5d 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Plan
Review a plan against structure and scope criteria. Runs internal reviews and /peer-review in parallel by default. Returns combined structured findings.
Step 1: Resolve the Plan
- Plan text in conversation — use it
- Explicit path — read it
- Explicit slug — resolve to
.turbo/plans/<slug>.md - Single file — Glob
.turbo/plans/*.md. If exactly one file exists, use it - Most recent — most recently modified file
- Legacy fallback —
.turbo/plan.mdif.turbo/plans/does not exist - Nothing found — stop and state that no plan was found to review
When the plan came from a file, state the resolved path before continuing.
Unless the plan came from conversation text, or an explicit path or slug was passed, check whether the resolved plan still describes work that remains to be done. Report a frontmatter status: of done alongside the path.
Step 2: Run Reviews in Parallel
Two reference files carry the criteria, one per internal review:
Skip peer review when instructed (e.g., "without peer review", "no peer", "internal only").
When a list of already-adjudicated findings was supplied (one line each: the finding, its verdict, and the recorded reason), include it in every agent's prompt, internal and peer, labeled as decisions already reached on proposed revisions rather than as established properties of the plan. Direct each agent to treat a finding as listed when it matches one on both location and substance, to raise such a finding again only on evidence its recorded reason does not already account for, and to judge any other finding at the same location on its own merits.
Emit all Agent tool calls below in one assistant message. Each Agent call uses model: "opus" and no name. Wait for every agent to report before continuing. Do not begin the next step on a partial set, and do not relaunch an agent that has not yet reported. That is three Agent tool calls when peer review is active (two internal + one peer), or two Agent tool calls when peer review is skipped. Every agent's prompt must direct it to treat the shared working tree and its git index as read-only and to assess findings by reading and reasoning. HEAD stays where it is: read other refs with git show <ref>:<path> rather than git checkout or git switch. For a check that genuinely requires mutating code (such as testing whether a finding holds), the agent works in an isolated git worktree created under $TMPDIR and discarded afterward. Give that worktree its own dependency install rather than reaching the shared tree's install by any route: removing a worktree deletes through symlinks, and a redirected suite writes into the shared install. When its own install is not possible, the check is left unrun and reported as such. A check that runs in the shared checkout invokes an already-installed runner directly wherever a package-manager wrapper would front it, since such a wrapper reads as read-only while reconciling the shared install before it runs. Confine dependency installs and reconciliation to an isolated worktree. Afterward the agent verifies that git worktree list no longer shows the worktree, that git status --short is clean, and that HEAD is still on the branch it started on. After any check, in a worktree or in the shared checkout, it verifies that the shared tree's dependency directory still resolves (a destroyed install leaves git status clean, since it is gitignored). Damage the agent cannot repair is reported with the exact repair command in place of findings.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 5d ago Changed 709024c62246
- 13d ago First seen · 81 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 6be7bce01bff
review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository tobihagemann/turbo (402 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,442 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
plan-ceo-review
CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises, expand scope when it creates a better product. Three modes: SCOPE EXPANSION (dream big), HOLD SCOPE (maximum rigor), SCOPE REDUCTION (strip to essentials). Originally from Garry Tan's gstack…
master
Turn reference docs into active mastery through retrieval practice, case binding, and scenario simulation. Combines Skycak (learning science) and Chin (expertise acceleration) frameworks. Use when you want to deeply learn material, not just read it.
upskilling-coach
Expert coach for learning, mastering, and upskilling in any domain. Use when the user wants to learn, master, improve, upskill, get better at, or get coached on any topic. Helps build consistent practice habits, identify prerequisites, design efficient learning loops, avoid common pitfalls, maintain discipline, and…
agentic-review
Deep multi-agent code review for local changes. Inspired by AmpCode's agentic review. Use when you want comprehensive analysis of staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or branch differences. Spawns parallel specialized agents (security, performance, patterns, architecture) and synthesizes actionable…
qa
Full QA on all session changes using Codex as a second pair of eyes. Use when user says "QA", "full QA", "QA my changes", "QA all your changes", or "use codex to review". Runs git diff, sends changes to Codex for thorough review, and synthesizes findings.
design-swarm
Orchestrate a team of 10 design agents for holistic UI audit, ideation, and implementation. Use when: "design swarm", "holistic audit", "design review with all lenses", "full design analysis". Modes: audit, ideate, implement (any combination). Targets: screenshots, URLs, file paths, or text briefs.