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/srnichols/plan-forgeWrote 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/srnichols/plan-forge/step3-execute-slice)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/step3-execute-slice"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/step3-execute-slice/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/srnichols/plan-forge/step3-execute-slice"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/srnichols/plan-forge/step3-execute-slice.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 | $0.00026 | $0.01588 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00794 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00318 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
step3-execute-slice 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 today.
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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Step 3: Execute Slices
Pipeline: Step 3 of 5 (Session 2 — Execution) When: After plan is hardened (Step 2), in a new agent session Model suggestion: Any model / Codex / Copilot Auto (10% token savings) — execution is mechanical; Codex is fast and focused Next Step:
step4-completeness-sweep.prompt.md
Replace <YOUR-HARDENED-PLAN> with your hardened plan filename.
Read these files first:
- docs/plans/AI-Plan-Hardening-Runbook.md (Execution Agent Prompt + Sections 10-11)
- docs/plans/.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.md
Now act as an EXECUTION AGENT (see the Execution Agent Prompt in the runbook).
<investigate_before_coding> Before writing code that depends on an existing file, read that file first. Never assume a method signature, type name, or import path — verify it by opening the file. If the plan references a file you haven't loaded, load it before coding against it. </investigate_before_coding>
<implementation_discipline> Only make changes specified in the current slice. Do not add features, refactor existing code, add abstractions, or create helpers beyond what the slice requires. Do not add error handling for scenarios that cannot occur within this slice's scope. Do not add docstrings, comments, or type annotations to code you did not change. The right amount of complexity is the minimum needed for the current slice. </implementation_discipline>
Execute the hardened plan one slice at a time, starting with Slice 1.
Before starting Slice 1, run a Pre-Execution Traceability Check:
- Check OpenBrain (if configured):
search_thoughts("<plan topic>", project: "<YOUR PROJECT NAME>")— load prior gotchas, patterns, and lessons for the affected files/areas - Check LiveGuard memories: Read
.forge/liveguard-memories.jsonlif present — prior drift violations and incident history for this project - Scan the spec's MUST acceptance criteria
- Verify each MUST criterion maps to at least one slice's validation gate
- If any MUST criterion has no corresponding validation gate, flag it and ask before proceeding
Before each slice, load its Context Files (including .github/instructions/*.instructions.md guardrails). When scaffolding new entities/services/tests, use the matching prompt template from .github/prompts/. Follow the validation loop exactly. Commit after each passed slice. If any gate fails or any ambiguity arises, pause and ask for clarification.
Re-anchor after each slice using the lightweight check (4 yes/no questions). Do a full re-anchor every 3rd slice or when a lightweight check flags a concern.
For [parallel-safe] slices:
- Note which Parallel Group they belong to
- After all slices in a group complete, run the Parallel Merge Checkpoint
- If any parallel slice fails, pause all slices in that group and report
After ALL slices pass, run the COMPLETENESS SWEEP (Section 6.1).
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.
- today First seen · 134 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 49701820cbb3
step3-execute-slice is a command published in the GitHub repository srnichols/plan-forge (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,588 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-08.
Other commands, from other repositories
ui-aqa-flow-test-report-analysis
Phase 7 Test Report Analysis of ui-aqa-flow.
api-aqa-flow-execution-and-report-analysis
Phase 6 Execution & Report Analysis of api-aqa-flow (USER INTERACTION REQUIRED).
api-aqa-flow-test-correction
Phase 7 Test Corrections of api-aqa-flow (USER APPROVAL REQUIRED).
ui-aqa-flow-test-correction
Phase 8 Test Correction of ui-aqa-flow.
incident-patterns
Analyze recurring root causes and contributing factors across incidents. Provided by the Incident Review methodology.
unstuck
USE WHEN stuck on a bug, architecture decision, or recurring failure. Applies 5 perspectives sequentially (Researcher → Architect → Contrarian → Simplifier → Hacker) to break deadlock.