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 ayberkcansever/ai-skills --skill write-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ayberkcansever/ai-skillsWrote 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/ayberkcansever/ai-skills/write-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ayberkcansever/ai-skills/write-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ayberkcansever/ai-skills/write-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/ayberkcansever/ai-skills/write-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ayberkcansever/ai-skills/write-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 | $0.00045 | $0.04911 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01964 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00982 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00491 |
Grade A, and why
write-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 — 315 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Write Plan
Overview
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for the codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about the toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
Announce at start: "I'm using the write-plan skill to create the implementation plan."
Invariants — read first, re-read after any context compaction
- Exact file paths always
- Every code step shows code — tests/contracts complete, routine implementation full or focused diff sketch
- Exact commands with expected output
- Commits stage explicit paths (or your repo's commit helper), tagged
[T<N>]— nevergit add ./git add -A - DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
- If the conversation was summarized mid-plan, re-read this file and the spec before writing further tasks — never author from a summary of either.
Context: Plans are written in the user's checkout; they are executed in this checkout if already on the ticket branch, otherwise in a per-ticket worktree that execute-plan opens via the git-worktrees skill. Keep every path in the plan repo-relative so it resolves in either place.
Documentation layout (two tiers)
| Tier | Path | Git | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Durable | docs/features/<TICKET-ID>/ |
tracked | Design, implementation plans, test checklists — commit when stable |
| WIP | docs/plans/<TICKET-ID>/ |
gitignored | Agent scratch during write-plan / execute-plan |
Infer <TICKET-ID> from the branch name (e.g. PROJ-123) or ask once if unclear. If your project does not use ticket IDs, use a short kebab-case slug for the feature.
Save new implementation plans to (WIP):
docs/plans/<TICKET-ID>/<scope>-implementation-plan.md
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 7c730678e66d
- 1mo ago Changed · -10 lines 397ce5073cbe
- 1mo ago Changed · +10 lines · -25 tokens per session a91e7ddc8a0d
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines b8663cf1b2c1
- 1mo ago First seen · 314 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A b85e0aa9494b
write-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository ayberkcansever/ai-skills (2 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 4,911 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pn-writing-skills
Applies TDD to skill authoring: validation scenarios first, then SKILL.md. Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment.
pn-systematic-debugging
Root cause analysis with triage mode — Phase 0 feedback loop, investigate first, one question max, then isolate, hypothesize, confirm. Outputs TDD fix plan with RED-GREEN cycles; optional GitHub issue via GitHub MCP. Use when debugging a failure or bug.
pn-discipline-philosophy
Defines engineering discipline: test-first, root-cause before fix, minimal change, measure-before-optimize, review/second look, evidence over guess. Use when implementing features, debugging, planning, or establishing development practices. Aligns with TDD, systematic debugging, and RCA practices (current).
pn-tdd
Enforces test-driven development: RED-GREEN-REFACTOR; production code only after a failing test. Use when implementing features or fixes with TDD.
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.