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 bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos --skill bcc-plan-spargit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaosWrote 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/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-plan-spar)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-plan-spar"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-plan-spar/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/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-plan-spar"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos/bcc-plan-spar.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, 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 335 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.
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 | $0.00091 | $0.04912 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.02456 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00982 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00491 |
Grade A, and why
bcc-plan-spar 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 9d 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 — 407 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
bcc-plan-spar
Job: solid coding contract for one slice —
- Human grill (Q&A until clear enough — no default turn quota) → clear sub-plan intent
- Lock
PLAN.md(+CONTEXT/ ADRs) - Auto review (
rounds= review budget, multi-backend) → live results → main agent iterates PLAN - Human final gate → APPROVE / amend / stop
- Hand off to
bcc-clean-cut(implement — not this skill)
Deep source: grill-with-docs Act 1 (grill + domain) + Act 2 (bounded review, CLI fallback).
Formats: CONTEXT-FORMAT.md, ADR-FORMAT.md, PLAN-FORMAT.md.
Workflow preflight (required — before Phase 0/1)
Do not start grilling or rewriting PLAN.md until this check runs.
If anything is ambiguous → ask the user one clear question (with a recommended answer). Do not invent workflow state.
1. Snapshot disk (read if present)
| Path | Ask |
|---|---|
plans.md / progress.md / findings.md |
Is there a global endeavor map? Where are we? |
PLAN.md |
Is there an active coding brief? Draft or locked? Which slice? |
CONTEXT.md / docs/adr/* |
Domain language already started? |
.bcc/session.json |
Active slice / prior approve (see SESSION.md) |
| Chat this session | Did user already APPROVE implement / skip align? |
Echo a one-line status, e.g.:
preflight · throughline=yes|no · PLAN=missing|draft|locked|stale? · slice=? · session=… · recommend=grill|reuse-PLAN|hand-off-clean-cut|ask-user
2. Hard rule: throughline before plan-spar
| Check | Required |
|---|---|
plans.md exists with a non-empty Goal (and preferably a hardpoint map) |
Yes |
If missing or empty:
- Do not start Phase 1 grill for a multi-step endeavor.
- Tell user: “bcc-plan-spar runs only after throughline. Run
/bcc-throughlinefirst (or Mode A/bcc-breaking-coding-chaos).” - Offer to load bcc-throughline now.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 407 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A d561931b8bad
bcc-plan-spar is a skill published in the GitHub repository bo-cao/breaking-coding-chaos (22 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 4,912 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
handoff
Guides the Claude Code agent through completing a task, selecting a handoff tier, building a valid completion-card, and performing a clean task handoff.
x-harness-admission
Teach the x-harness admission workflow and completion-card discipline.
recovery
Handle blocked verification outcomes.
verify
Run x-harness read-only verification.
review-input
Adversarial review of any input (human idea, agent analysis, research report, feedback, observation) BEFORE it mutates persistent project state. Universal interceptor with domain auto-detection, 2-phase classification + evaluation, and triple-verdict output (veracity / fit / actionability). Anti-girouette guardrail…
ambiguity-detector
Takes surface scan results, optional LLM synthesis open-question entries, and optional tree-sitter AST signals to score project ambiguities (1-10). Outputs structured ambiguityfeed for smart-question-generator. Pure heuristic — no LLM calls. Designed for Stage 3.5 of the /gaai:bootstrap pipeline (between LLM synthesis…