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/UiPath/coder_evalWrote 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/uipath/coder_eval/coder-eval-implement-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/uipath/coder_eval/coder-eval-implement-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/uipath/coder_eval/coder-eval-implement-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/uipath/coder_eval/coder-eval-implement-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/uipath/coder_eval/coder-eval-implement-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 | $0.00022 | $0.04576 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01830 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00915 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00458 |
Grade A, and why
coder-eval-implement-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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
- Current git status: !
git status --short - Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Recent commits: !
git log --oneline -5
Implement Plan
Implement an approved plan produced by /coder-eval-create-plan phase by phase, verifying and reviewing each phase before moving on, then run one cross-cutting review of the whole change. The plan is your contract: it carries, per phase, a Risk tag, Changes, Edge Cases, Tests to Write, Tests to Run (scoped commands), and Acceptance Criteria, plus a global Master Acceptance Checklist, Patterns to Mirror (real code snippets), and a Confidence Score. Drive off those — do not re-derive what the plan and CLAUDE.md already specify. The plan path is: $ARGUMENTS
If no plan path was provided, ask for one.
When to use this
This command is for multi-phase plans where phases build on each other and the cost of a wrong turn is high. For a single trivial change (one file, a rename, a typo, a one-line fix), skip the ceremony below — make the change, run the relevant scoped test, and stop. Do not spawn review sub-agents for work a human would eyeball in ten seconds. (If the plan's Confidence Score is below 7, stop — per /coder-eval-create-plan it isn't ready; surface that instead of implementing.)
The loop
Everything below expands this core loop. Hold it in your head:
pre-flight (understand plan + Patterns to Mirror, learn conventions, capture <start-sha>, build task list + findings file)
for each phase, in order:
implement → write the phase's "Tests to Write" first for new behaviour, then the code
verify → Stage 1: the phase's "Tests to Run" + scoped lint must pass
review → Stage 2: spec-compliance, then (risk-scaled) quality
commit → conventional message with a progress counter
final review of the whole change → fix → tick Master Acceptance Checklist → summary
Complete one phase fully before starting the next. Stay within the plan's scope — do not refactor or extend beyond what it specifies.
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 · 233 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A d7af5892aed2
coder-eval-implement-plan is a command published in the GitHub repository UiPath/coder_eval (151 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 4,576 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
task-verify
PitWay: Run an inprogress task's approved verification command and persist evidence.
usage-add
PitWay: Accumulate measured planning or qa token usage onto a milestone.
milestone-list
PitWay: List every milestone with a concise one-line status.
recall
Recall durable project context for a concrete question.
handoff
Export a Waybill Bundle by default, or import one when requested.
fix
Universal debugging and fix application with semantic code analysis.