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/ddunnock/claude-pluginsWrote 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/commands/ddunnock/claude-plugins/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ddunnock/claude-plugins/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ddunnock/claude-plugins/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/commands/ddunnock/claude-plugins/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ddunnock/claude-plugins/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 | $0.00011 | $0.02213 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00885 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00221 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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 — 350 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan
PLANS-enhanced implementation planning with ADR-style architecture decisions and requirement coverage mapping.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Usage
/plan # Plan from all specs
/plan spec.md # Plan from specific spec
/plan --all # Force regenerate all plans
/plan --status # Show coverage without generating
Memory Directives
Load these directive files for architecture decision guidance:
Always loaded:
constitution.md- Global principles, quality gatessecurity.md- Security requirements for ADRsdocumentation.md- Documentation standards
Project-specific (detected: Python ≥3.11, Poetry, MCP SDK):
python.md- Python standards, type hints, docstrings, Pyright strict modetesting.md- pytest patterns, 80% coverage requirementgit-cicd.md- Conventional commits, CI pipeline
PLANS Taxonomy (5 Categories)
Systematic coverage scan for implementation planning:
| Category | Focus | Detection Target |
|---|---|---|
| Phases | Implementation phases, milestones | Missing phases, unclear objectives |
| Linkages | Inter-phase dependencies | Circular deps, undefined prerequisites |
| Architecture | ADR-based decisions | Undocumented choices, missing rationale |
| Notes | Task generation guidance | Vague notes, unclear scope indicators |
| Scope | Requirement coverage mapping | Orphan requirements, coverage gaps |
PLANS Activation by Project Type
| Project Type | Heavy Categories | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Greenfield | ARCHITECTURE | New decisions needed |
| Migration | LINKAGES | Dependencies critical |
| Refactoring | ARCHITECTURE, NOTES | Preserve + improve |
| Feature Addition | SCOPE, NOTES | Fit into existing |
Active for this project (MCP Server - Greenfield):
- Phases: Implementation phases, milestones
- Linkages: Inter-phase dependencies
- Architecture: ADR-based decisions (heavy - new MCP server)
- Notes: Task generation guidance
- Scope: Requirement coverage mapping
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 350 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 45c03c8fada0
plan is a command published in the GitHub repository ddunnock/claude-plugins (14 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 2,213 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.