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/rand/mnemosyne/feature-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rand/mnemosyneWhat 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 | $0.02829 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.01414 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00566 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00283 |
Grade A, and why
feature-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 2d 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 — 393 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
I will help you create a detailed implementation plan from a feature specification, including technical approach, architecture decisions, data models, and dependencies.
Usage:
/feature-plan <feature-id>- Create implementation plan from spec/feature-plan --show <feature-id>- Display existing plan/feature-plan --update <feature-id>- Update existing plan
Instructions for me:
-
Load feature spec:
- Read
.mnemosyne/artifacts/specs/<feature-id>.md - If not found: "Error: Feature spec '' not found. Use /feature-specify first."
- Parse YAML frontmatter to get spec memory_id
- Extract user scenarios, requirements, and constraints
- Read
-
Validate spec quality:
- Run DSPy validation using optimized v1 ReviewerModule:
cd src/orchestration/dspy_modules uv run python3 specflow_integration.py ../../.mnemosyne/artifacts/specs/<feature-id>.md --json - Parse JSON output for:
completeness_score: 0.0-1.0 quality scoreis_valid: Overall validation statusissues: List of specific problemsambiguities: Detected vague terms
- Quality gate check:
- If
completeness_score >= 0.8andis_valid == true: Proceed - If
completeness_score < 0.8oris_valid == false:⚠️ Spec quality below recommended threshold (<completeness_score>%) Issues found: - <issue 1> - <issue 2> Ambiguities detected: - <ambiguity 1>: <question> - <ambiguity 2>: <question> Recommended actions: - Run /feature-validate <feature-id> for detailed analysis - Run /feature-clarify <feature-id> to resolve ambiguities - Run /feature-validate <feature-id> --fix for specific fixes Continue anyway? (Creating plan from unclear spec may lead to rework)- Wait for user confirmation before proceeding
- If
- Fallback: If DSPy validation fails, warn "DSPy validation unavailable, proceeding without quality check" and continue
- Run DSPy validation using optimized v1 ReviewerModule:
-
Check for existing plan:
- Look for
.mnemosyne/artifacts/plans/<feature-id>-plan.md - If exists:
- Parse version from frontmatter
- If
--show: Display plan summary and exit - If
--update: Increment version and update - Otherwise: Ask if user wants to view, update, or create new version
- Look for
-
Load constitution (if exists):
- Read
.mnemosyne/artifacts/constitution/project-constitution.md - Extract architecture decisions, constraints, quality gates
- Use to guide implementation choices
- Read
-
Gather implementation details: Ask user about:
a) Technical Approach:
- High-level strategy (e.g., "REST API with JWT auth", "Event-driven with message queue")
- Why this approach? (rationale)
- Alternative approaches considered and rejected
b) Architecture Decisions: For each significant choice:
- Decision: [What was decided]
- Rationale: [Why this choice]
- Trade-offs: [What we gain vs. what we sacrifice]
- Example: "Use Redis for caching - improves latency (gain) but adds operational complexity (trade-off)"
c) Data Models (if applicable):
- Database schema (tables, columns, relationships)
- Data structures (classes, structs, interfaces)
- Data flow diagrams
d) API Design (if applicable):
- Endpoints and methods
- Request/response formats
- Error handling strategy
e) Dependencies:
- External libraries/frameworks needed
- Internal modules that must be modified
- Services or APIs consumed
f) Integration Points:
- What existing systems need to be integrated?
- How will they communicate? (REST, GraphQL, events, RPC)
- Authentication/authorization requirements
g) Testing Strategy:
- Unit testing approach
- Integration testing plan
- E2E testing scenarios
- Performance testing requirements
h) Risks and Mitigations:
- What could go wrong?
- How will we handle it?
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 393 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 10d7be8cf83f
feature-plan is a command published in the GitHub repository rand/mnemosyne (84 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 2,829 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
hatch3r-bug-plan
Diagnose a complex incident -- reproduce the symptom, rank root-cause hypotheses, design the fix path, and emit regression coverage items as a board-ready investigation.
hatch3r-debug
Standalone debug-and-fix workflow — add strategic debug logging, collect runtime logs from the user, perform root cause analysis, implement the fix, and clean up all debug artifacts.
hatch3r-feature-plan
Design a new capability -- draft user stories, acceptance criteria, data model, API surface, and sub-issue breakdown as an epic-shaped todo.md for greenfield features.
story-6.1.4
Story ID: 6.1.4 Epic: Epic-6.1 - Agent Identity System Wave: Wave 1 (Foundation) Status: 📋 Ready to Start Priority: 🔴 Critical Owner: Dev (Dex) Created: 2025-01-14 Updated: 2025-01-17 (v4 - Unified System Integration) Duration: 2.5 days (20 hours) Investment: $250.00.
hatch3r-bug-pipeline
Run a known-cause bug fix through a 3-phase test-first pipeline -- reproduce + root-cause, regression-test + fix together, then root-cause-depth review -- with full sub-agent delegation.
hatch3r-incident-response
Drive a live production incident through a structured lifecycle -- triage + topology, bounded-autonomy mitigation, stakeholder communication, then a blameless post-mortem with runbook -- via delegated sub-agents.