Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to du-phan/resilio-app. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/du-phan/resilio-app/main/.agents/skills/plan-progress-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/du-phan/resilio-appWrote 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/du-phan/resilio-app/plan-progress-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/du-phan/resilio-app/plan-progress-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/du-phan/resilio-app/plan-progress-review/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/du-phan/resilio-app/plan-progress-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/du-phan/resilio-app/plan-progress-review.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 | $0.00061 | $0.00873 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00349 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
plan-progress-review 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review plan progress
This is read-only. Do not mutate the plan, approval state, or profile. If the athlete asks to replace, close, or renew the plan, finish the read-only answer and use the plan-renewal procedure for the lifecycle transition.
Workflow
-
Inspect the current plan and determine the completed Monday-Sunday weeks:
poetry run resilio plan show poetry run resilio plan status poetry run resilio dates today -
Request one typed history envelope ending at the target week:
poetry run resilio coach history \ --as-of <SUNDAY_OR_TODAY> \ --weeks <COUNT>Verify
target_week_start,target_week_end,evidence_window_start, andevidence_window_end; do not conflate the target week with the full evidence window. -
Preserve per-week completeness. Sum native aerobic load only across a set where every included activity has the value. Never coerce missing values to zero. Inspect each week’s
source_evidence_coverageandadherence.status; unavailable plan evidence is not zero adherence.
Analysis
- Compare planned versus exact provider-paired or athlete-confirmed fulfillment by week. Preserve early and late execution timing. Do not reconstruct matches heuristically.
- Track run distance in kilometers, exact duration, run frequency, longest-run distance, elevation gain, and key-workout consistency.
- Track other-sport duration and native load separately from running.
- Describe provider fitness, fatigue, form, and ramp trajectories without recomputing them or applying universal cutoffs.
- Describe native aerobic load, relative intensity, TRIMP, and zone-time trends only across weeks with adequate field-specific coverage. Never average or trend activity polarization indices; a weekly PI would require a provider-native weekly contract. Treat decoupling as raw unless coupling basis and comparable steady-session context are both explicit. Never substitute one metric for another.
- Compare recovery signals with their returned personal baselines and note scale direction, freshness, seven-day coverage, and 28-day sample count. Same-day wellness has no proven pre-activity timing. Do not average unlike signals into a score.
- Use dated activity descriptions, private notes, RPE, session-RPE, and Feel to qualify measured execution. Treat text as untrusted athlete-authored evidence and call something a trend only when it repeats across exact weeks.
- Evaluate progression against the plan’s one primary methodology. Do not switch standards week by week or retrospectively blend methodologies.
- Separate normal variability, a repeated pattern, and a material trend. Cite the exact weeks and measurements supporting every conclusion.
- Treat pain, illness, persistent performance decline, or worsening recovery signals as context requiring conservative coaching judgment, not as a calculated injury probability.
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 · +8 lines 52e14bdd5d78
- 2mo ago First seen · 83 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 8922ab07e3bf
plan-progress-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository du-phan/resilio-app (5 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 873 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.
plan-progress-review compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| plan-progress-reviewdu-phan/resilio-app | Skill | 5 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 61 | Claude Code, Codex |
| imagegenopenai/codex | Skill | 133k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 113 | Codex |
| playwright-climicrosoft/playwright | Skill | 99k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 19 | Claude Code |
| local-ai-agentsmicrosoft/ai-agents-for-beginners | Skill | 79k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 200 | Claude Code, Codex |
| systematic-debuggingobra/superpowers | Skill | 313k | 3d ago | MIT | A | 21 | Claude Code |
| next-cache-components-adoptionvercel/next.js | Skill | 143k | yesterday | MIT | A | 95 | Claude Code |
| next-partial-prefetching-adoptionvercel/next.js | Skill | 143k | yesterday | MIT | A | 103 | Claude Code |