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 skills add All-The-Vibes/ATV-Phoenix --skill phoenix-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/All-The-Vibes/ATV-PhoenixWrote 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/skills/all-the-vibes/atv-phoenix/phoenix-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/all-the-vibes/atv-phoenix/phoenix-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/all-the-vibes/atv-phoenix/phoenix-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/skills/all-the-vibes/atv-phoenix/phoenix-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/all-the-vibes/atv-phoenix/phoenix-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 | $0.00083 | $0.01093 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00547 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00109 |
Grade A, and why
phoenix-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 12d 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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
phoenix-plan — small atomic steps, each with an objective finish line
Overview
A plan is only useful if you can prove each step is done. Phoenix plans in slices the self-heal
loop can verify one at a time — every step carries its own phoenix_sense check, the steps compose
up to the Intent Contract's acceptance gate, and the build stays green between them so any step is
independently revertible. A plan whose steps you can't check is a wish list.
When to use
- After
phoenix-thinkproduced an Intent Contract with an acceptance check. - Any multi-step change, refactor, or feature where order and blast radius matter.
- When a task "feels big" — planning is how you find the seams.
When NOT to use: a one-line change with an obvious check — just phoenix-build it directly.
The planning flow
Intent Contract (acceptance check)
│
▼
Decompose into ordered slices
│
▼ for each slice:
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ goal (one line) │
│ check (a phoenix_sense) │ ← must be runnable & able to fail
│ risky? → snapshot first │
└─────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
Slices compose up to the acceptance check
Produce a step list like this
STEP 1 Add the failing test for the new behavior
check: {"kind":"command_exit","target":["pytest","-q","tests/test_x.py::test_new"],"expect":0}
(expected RED until step 2 — that's correct)
STEP 2 Implement the minimal code to pass step 1 risky? no
check: same as step 1, now expected GREEN
STEP 3 Wire it into the caller risky? YES → snapshot caller.py first
check: {"kind":"command_exit","target":["pytest","-q"],"expect":0} (full suite green)
ACCEPTANCE = step 3's full-suite check (from the Intent Contract)
Rules
- One check per step. If you can't attach a single objective check to a step, it's too big — split it.
- Green between steps. Order so the suite is green after each step; that makes every step revertible and turns "it broke" into "roll back the last step", not "debug the whole change".
- Name the risky steps. Steps likely to break a passing check get a
phoenix_snapshotbefore editing sophoenix_healcan roll back instantly. - Use the graph to scope. Before planning a change to
X, askphoenix-context"what breaks if I change X?" — plan the real blast radius, not a guessed one. (Cheaper and more accurate than grepping.) - The last step's check = the acceptance gate. The plan is wrong if the steps don't compose up to 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 86 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 29ee56ef7198
phoenix-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository All-The-Vibes/ATV-Phoenix (5 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,093 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
security-review
Perform a focused security review of pending git changes to identify high-confidence security vulnerabilities with real exploitation potential. Use this skill when the user asks for a security review, security audit, vulnerability scan, or wants to check pending changes on a branch for security issues before merging.…
huggingface-llm-trainer
Train or fine-tune language models with TRL or Unsloth on Hugging Face Jobs, including SFT, DPO, GRPO, reward models, and GGUF conversion. Use for cloud LLM training; use huggingface-vision-trainer for vision tasks.
feature-dev
Guide a feature implementation through a structured seven-phase workflow with deep codebase understanding, clarifying questions, parallel architecture design, and quality review. Use this skill when the user asks to build a new feature, add functionality, or wants a methodical approach to implementation rather than…
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
learning-quality
Structured format for capturing high-quality learnings during ClosedLoop runs.
plan-validate
Deterministic plan.json validation via Python script, replacing most plan-validator agent calls. Performs JSON parsing, schema validation, task checkbox regex, required section checks, sync validation, and data extraction. Only semantic consistency checks (storage/query alignment) require the LLM agent. Triggers on…