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 commands/fmarzochi/egc/plan-prdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Fmarzochi/EGCWrote 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/fmarzochi/egc/plan-prd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/fmarzochi/egc/plan-prd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/fmarzochi/egc/plan-prd.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 | $0.00018 | $0.01327 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00664 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00265 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
plan-prd 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to plan-prd — 60 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PRD Command
Produces a Product Requirements Document: the requirements-phase artifact of the SDLC. Captures what must be true for success and why, and stops before how. Implementation decomposition is delegated to /plan.
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Scope of this command
| This command does | This command does NOT do |
|---|---|
| Frame the problem and users | Design the architecture |
| Capture success criteria and scope | Pick files or write patterns |
| List open questions and risks | Enumerate implementation tasks |
Write .Gemini/prds/{name}.prd.md |
Produce an implementation plan: that's /plan |
If you find yourself writing implementation detail, stop and cut it. It belongs in /plan.
Anti-fluff rule: When information is missing, write TBD: needs validation via {method}. Never invent plausible-sounding requirements.
Workflow
Four phases. Each phase is a single gate: ask the questions, wait for the user, then move on. No nested loops, no parallel research ceremony.
Phase 1: FRAME
If $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask:
What do you want to build? One or two sentences.
If provided, restate in one sentence and ask:
I understand: {restated}. Correct, or should I adjust?
Then ask the framing questions in a single set:
- Who has this problem? (specific role or segment)
- What is the observable pain? (describe behavior, not assumed needs)
- Why can't they solve it with what exists today?
- Why now?: what changed that makes this worth doing?
Wait for the user. Do not proceed without answers (or explicit "skip").
Phase 2: GROUND
Ask for evidence. This is the shortest phase and the most load-bearing:
What evidence do you have that this problem is real and worth solving? (user quotes, support tickets, metrics, observed behavior, failed workarounds: anything concrete)
If the user has none, record the PRD's Evidence section as Assumption: needs validation via {user research | analytics | prototype}. This keeps the PRD honest.
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 · 161 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 787979f1ea0a
plan-prd is a command published in the GitHub repository Fmarzochi/EGC (48 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,327 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to plan-prd, differing in 60 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
demand-discovery
Run automated niche demand discovery research across 7 data sources and 26 categories.
tdd-workflow
Implement the behavior described in $ARGUMENTS using strict TDD. Follow this exact sequence. Do not collapse phases. Each gate requires actual test runner output.
code-review
Review the code changes in this project. For each file changed.
refactor-file
Refactor the file specified in $ARGUMENTS following project conventions.
api-add-endpoint
Create a new API endpoint. $ARGUMENTS should describe the endpoint (e.g., "POST /api/users - create a user").
api-test-endpoint
Test the API endpoint specified in $ARGUMENTS.