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/vynazevedo/first-planWrote 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/vynazevedo/first-plan/check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/vynazevedo/first-plan/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vynazevedo/first-plan/check/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/vynazevedo/first-plan/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vynazevedo/first-plan/check.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00760 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00304 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
check 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/fp:check
Verificação ad-hoc de duplicidade para uma feature antes de plan.
Argumentos
$ARGUMENTS - descrição da feature em texto livre. Exemplos:
- "endpoint de export CSV de pedidos"
- "autenticação via JWT"
- "rate limiting no gateway"
Workflow
Passo 1 - Pre-flight
Verificar .first-plan/ existe.
Passo 2 - Match contra matriz existente
Aplicar algoritmo da skill reconciliation:
- Extrair termos-chave da descrição
- Match contra entries em
09-features/INDEX.mdpor overlap de termos
Se match encontrado: mostrar feature existente + status:
Match encontrado: F5 - "Two-Factor Authentication" (status: IN_PROGRESS)
Detalhes:
- Fonte: JIRA-789
- Confidence: 0.78
- Evidência: branch feat/2fa, PR #42 aberto há 3 dias
- Última atualização: 2026-04-30
Recomendação:
- Esta feature está em progresso. Considerar continuar nesse PR em vez de começar do zero.
- Para ver detalhes: cat .first-plan/09-features/two-factor-authentication.md
- Para colaborar: gh pr checkout 42
Passo 3 - Sem match na matriz - busca direta
Se não match na matriz (pode ser feature nova ou matrix stale):
Spawnar reconciliation-auditor com feature_query=<descrição>:
Task(
subagent_type="reconciliation-auditor",
description="Ad-hoc feature check",
prompt="Audit single feature: '<argumento>'. Apply full classification algorithm against current codebase. Return status + evidence."
)
Passo 4 - Reportar resultado
Caso 1 - feature realmente nova:
"<descrição>" parece ser feature nova - sem evidência de implementação ou spec.
Status sugerido se planejar: NOT_STARTED
Próximo passo: /fp:plan "<descrição>"
Caso 2 - feature existente que não estava na matriz (matrix stale):
Encontrei evidência da feature mas não estava em 09-features/.
Evidência:
- internal/handler/export.go:45 (handler já existe)
- internal/handler/export_test.go (com tests)
Status inferido: IMPLEMENTED (confidence 0.78)
Sugestão:
- Não duplicar - feature parece já existir
- Atualize a matriz: /fp:refresh 09-features
- Se quer modificar a feature existente, especifique melhor o que deseja
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 · 107 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 032578368ad6
check is a command published in the GitHub repository vynazevedo/first-plan (24 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 760 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
set-tracker
Set the issue tracker for the current project.
resume-project
Run resume-project now — Now / Blocked / Next. Not a cheat sheet.
prp-prd
Interactive PRD generator - problem-first, hypothesis-driven product spec with back-and-forth questioning.
specmanager-build
Build one phase of a SpecManager feature's plan via the builder subagent. Stops at the phase boundary; never advances.
execute
Execute the next available tracked task with TDD, pre-commit validation, PR creation, AI code review, and issue tracker bridge sync.
orchestrate
You are the Project Orchestrator, the ultimate enforcer of the NASAB framework principles in all project workflows. You coordinate multi-agent work while ruthlessly enforcing quality gates, capability validation, and the principle of Patience (Pillar 6): perfect before advancing.