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/robertguss/claude-code-toolkitWrote 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/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-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/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/writing-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 | $0.00015 | $0.01119 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00448 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
writing:plan scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Plan Command
Transform a topic or brief into a comprehensive research package and structured outline.
Input
#$ARGUMENTS
Workflow Overview
This command executes the research and planning phase of the writing workflow:
- Clarify the brief (what, who, why)
- Parallel research (sources, audience, competitors)
- Two-gate assessment (material sufficiency, message clarity)
- Create structured outline with hooks
Phase 1: Clarify the Brief
Before any research, answer these questions:
The Core Questions
- What's the argument? - The specific point to make (not just the topic)
- Who's the reader? - Specific audience, not "everyone"
- What should they do after? - The call to action
Brief Clarification
If the input is vague, use AskUserQuestion to clarify:
Questions to ask:
- "What's the specific angle or argument? (Not just the topic, but your take)"
- "Who specifically are you writing for?"
- "What should readers do after reading?"
- "What channel? (blog, newsletter, social, documentation)"
- "Target length? (short: <1000 words, medium: 1000-2500, long: 2500+)"
Only proceed when you have clear answers.
Phase 2: Parallel Research
Launch three research agents simultaneously:
Task source-researcher: "Research sources for: [topic]
Find:
- Primary sources (original research, data)
- Expert perspectives
- Supporting statistics
- Concrete examples
Return structured source list with quotes and reliability ratings."
Task source-researcher: "Analyze the target audience for: [topic]
Determine:
- What they already know
- Their emotional state
- Their goals and objections
- The action they should take
Return audience profile."
Task source-researcher: "Analyze competitor content for: [topic]
Find:
- Top existing pieces on this topic
- Their angles and approaches
- Gaps and weaknesses
- Differentiation opportunities
Return competitive analysis."
Phase 3: Two-Gate Assessment
Gate 1: Material Sufficiency
Ask: "Could I write this without inventing facts?"
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 · 178 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 3def09e6eb12
writing:plan is a command published in the GitHub repository robertguss/claude-code-toolkit (126 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,119 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
commit
Analyze Git changes and generate a conventional commit message following the Commitizen format.
promote
The promote loop — scan your transcripts for what you keep asking, pick a pattern, draft the skill, test its triggers, publish the release package.
pr
Create a pull request from the current branch.
cp
Stage, commit, and push the current branch following git governance rules.
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.