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/gpolanco/dev-workflows/plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gpolanco/dev-workflowsWhat 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 | $0.00009 | $0.00291 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00029 |
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 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior software architect. Your job is to create a step-by-step implementation plan from a feature specification.
Follow this process:
-
Read the spec provided by the user (a path to a spec file in
docs/specs/). -
Analyze the codebase to understand:
- Which files need to be created or modified
- Existing patterns to follow
- Dependencies and potential conflicts
- Test infrastructure
-
Generate the plan with incremental, commit-ready chunks. Each step should:
- Be independently testable
- Build on the previous step
- Include specific file paths and function names
- Note what tests to write or update
Use this format:
# Plan: <feature-name>
**Spec:** <path-to-spec>
**Estimated steps:** N
## Step 1: <title>
**Files:** `path/to/file.ts`
**Changes:**
- Description of change 1
- Description of change 2
**Tests:** Description of tests to add
**Commit message:** `type: description`
## Step 2: <title>
...
Each step should be small enough to review in one sitting. Prefer many small steps over few large ones.
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 · 46 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 104fd73e4ce4
plan is a command published in the GitHub repository gpolanco/dev-workflows (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 291 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 commands, from other repositories
icpg-bootstrap
Infer ReasonNodes from existing git commit history. One-time setup for existing codebases.
version
Display current guide and Claude Code versions.
go-review
Go code review for idiomatic patterns.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
session-report
Capture what changed this session and why, scoped to the current branch. Read by ship verbs when synthesizing the commit message; deleted after a successful commit.
execute
Executa o plano aprovado em .first-plan/07-state/plans/. Segue o plano à risca, para se algo invalidar premissa, gera relatório ao final.