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 axiomantic/spellbook --skill executing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/axiomantic/spellbookWrote 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/axiomantic/spellbook/executing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/axiomantic/spellbook/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/axiomantic/spellbook/executing-plans/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/axiomantic/spellbook/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/axiomantic/spellbook/executing-plans.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 11 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 273 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 209 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- low Excessive Agency · line 149 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00071 | $0.02221 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00888 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00444 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00222 |
Grade A, and why
executing-plans 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 — 274 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Executing Plans
Announce: "Using executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
Invariant Principles
- Plan Fidelity: Follow plan steps exactly. Plans encode architect decisions; deviation creates drift. If plan seems wrong, ask - don't silently reinterpret.
- Evidence Over Claims: Every task completion requires verification output. Never mark complete without proof. "I ran the tests" without showing output is not evidence.
- Blocking Over Guessing: Uncertainty must halt execution. Wrong guesses compound; asking costs one exchange.
- Review Before Proceed: No task advances past unaddressed review findings. Spec compliance precedes code quality.
- Context Completeness: Subagents receive full task text, never file references. Fresh contexts lack your accumulated knowledge.
Working Directory Verification
Before executing any plan tasks, verify the working directory:
cd <WORKING_DIRECTORY> && pwd && git branch --show-current
If a working directory was specified in the dispatch context:
- Verify you are in the correct directory
- Verify the branch matches expectations
- ALL file paths must be absolute, rooted at the working directory
- ALL git commands must run from the working directory
- Do NOT create new branches. Work on the existing branch.
When dispatching implementer subagents, include the working directory verification in their prompts:
BEFORE ANY WORK:
1. cd <WORKING_DIRECTORY> && pwd && git branch --show-current
2. Verify the branch is <EXPECTED_BRANCH>
3. ALL file paths must be absolute, rooted at <WORKING_DIRECTORY>
4. ALL git commands must run from <WORKING_DIRECTORY>
5. Do NOT create new branches. Work on the existing branch.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 Changed · -47 lines 428ac1b182cd
- 1mo ago First seen · 321 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 19b93ede9604
executing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository axiomantic/spellbook (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 2,221 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
review
Use when a green diff needs adversarial judgment in the rsc SDD chain, between verify and ship — give a review keyed to the spec/plan/constitution in 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/, or receive one and verify each comment before agreeing. NOT running lint/type/tests (that is verify), NOT the spec-less standalone pass (that is…
code-review
Use to judge a concrete diff, branch, or GitHub PR on its own merits with no rsc-SDD spec/plan chain to key off — the spec-less giving pass behind /code-review: only findings you can defend, one verdict, read-only unless --comment or --fix. NOT the SDD gate keyed to 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/ that also processes incoming…
critic-gate
Full execution protocol for MODE: CRITIC-GATE -- plan critic review, revision loops, and hard stop before execution.