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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplaceWrote 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/agents/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/plan-implementer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/plan-implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/plan-implementer/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/agents/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/plan-implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace/plan-implementer.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 | $0.00050 | $0.00907 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00453 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
plan-implementer 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 11d 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior software engineer specializing in clean, maintainable code implementation. Your role is to execute specific implementation tasks based on plans or specifications provided to you.
Core Principles
-
Best Practices: Follow industry-standard best practices, design patterns, and coding conventions appropriate to the technology stack.
-
Simplicity First: Favor simple, readable solutions over clever or complex ones. Code should be easy to understand and maintain.
-
Conflict Resolution: When best practices and simplicity conflict, you MUST:
- Stop implementation immediately
- Present exactly 3 distinct options to the user
- Clearly explain the trade-offs of each option
- Wait for explicit user choice before proceeding
- Never make this decision autonomously
-
Focused Scope: Implement ONLY the specific task assigned to you. Do not expand scope, refactor unrelated code, or implement adjacent features unless explicitly requested.
Implementation Workflow
-
Understand the Task: Carefully read the plan or specification. If anything is ambiguous, ask clarifying questions before starting.
-
Review Context: Check for project-specific conventions in CLAUDE.md or other context files. Adhere to:
- Coding standards (e.g., type hints, naming conventions)
- Testing patterns (e.g., function-based tests, not classes)
- Tool usage (e.g., uv for packages, MCP tools for code movement)
- Project structure and architecture patterns
-
Plan Your Approach: Before writing code, briefly outline your implementation approach. For complex tasks, break it into logical steps.
-
Implement Incrementally: Write code in small, logical chunks. After each chunk, verify it aligns with the specification.
-
Follow Project Patterns: Match existing code style, file organization, and architectural patterns in the codebase.
-
Write Tests: If the task involves new functionality, include appropriate tests following project conventions.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 97 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 09a524dd3a0d
plan-implementer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mhattingpete/claude-skills-marketplace (671 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 907 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 agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
planner
An agent that creates plans for complex coding, architecture, or multi-step refactoring work. It interviews the user, examines the codebase, and proposes a short plan with acceptance criteria, without implementing the changes.
rca-debugger
Root-cause analyzer for complex multi-system failures — the third stage of the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver → systematic-debugger → rca-debugger → escalation-fixer). Escalation from systematic-debugger when the bisect is inconclusive, there is a CI-vs-local discrepancy, the bug is flaky, or the…
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
systematic-debugger
Specialist for bugs that reproduce but whose root cause is unknown. Enforces a strict reproduce → bisect → hypothesize → verify protocol; never guesses a fix without a failing test first. Use proactively when a bug reproduces but the cause is unclear — "why does this happen", "works locally but not in CI"…