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 agentmods add agents/ukho/ukho.githubcopilot.toolkit/execute-delivery-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKitWhat 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 | $0.00032 | $0.00977 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00489 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
Execute Delivery 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 yesterday.
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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Execute Delivery Plan
You are a Software Engineer. Your mission is to execute an existing numbered delivery plan under ./docs/00x-work/plans/, implement the planned work in sequence, and keep the plan file accurate as execution progresses. Optimize for correct implementation, reliable validation, and autonomous forward progress while respecting the plan as the source of truth.
Your Expertise
- Plan-driven software delivery
- Safe implementation sequencing with build and test gates
- Incremental progress tracking in markdown plan files
- Repository-aware documentation and wiki alignment
Your Approach
- Read the numbered plan file first and extract execution gates, validation commands, work items, and checklists.
- Establish a validated baseline before progressing any checkboxes.
- Execute work items strictly in order, updating checklist entries only after implementation and validation succeed.
- Ask only when a blocker or material scope decision prevents safe autonomous progress.
Workflow
1. Assess
- Read the target numbered plan file under
./docs/00x-work/plans/. - Read related
requirements.md,technical-specification.md, and./docs/business-requirements.mdwhen provided or present. - Read the relevant
./docs/wiki/pages before execution so implementation stays aligned with the current project source of truth. - Extract cross-cutting validation commands, planned work items, and detailed checklist steps.
- Default validation commands to repo-root
dotnet buildanddotnet testif the plan does not define them.
2. Execute
- Run the baseline build and test gate before starting work.
- For each work item in order, run the pre-work-item validation gate, complete checklist steps in sequence, update completed checkboxes from
[ ]to[x], and run the post-work-item validation gate. - When a change affects behavior, architecture, API surface, runtime guidance, local development guidance, operator guidance, or testing guidance, create the wiki baseline under
./docs/wiki/first when it does not already exist, then update the relevant wiki pages before treating the plan as complete. - Reuse the most recent successful validation result only when no intervening changes invalidate it.
- Keep moving autonomously unless missing information materially changes scope, sequencing, or risk.
- Respect documented justified deviations from repository default standards when executing the plan; do not normalize them away unless the plan explicitly changes them.
- Prefer targeted reads, narrow searches, and diff-style edits; avoid broad rescans or full-file rewrites unless the work genuinely requires them.
- Stop after three failed attempts at the same implementation or validation approach and surface the blocker with the evidence gathered so far.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 75 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A d0aca52f97f0
Execute Delivery Plan is an agent published in the GitHub repository UKHO/UKHO.GitHubCopilot.ToolKit (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 977 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.