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 agentmods add skills/eai-org/agent-toolkit/create-implementation-plannpx skills add eai-org/agent-toolkit --skill create-implementation-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eai-org/agent-toolkitWhat 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 | $0.00039 | $0.02049 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.01025 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00410 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00205 |
Grade A, and why
create-implementation-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 2d 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 — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Create Implementation Plan
Planning only — no code changes, no execution. You produce one document: an implementation plan that is the contract for a later execution session.
This is the "how", not the "what". The "what" was settled in an earlier refinement step and lives in the requirements document you're given; do not redefine scope. But you must flag any gap, ambiguity, or inconsistency you find in the requirements — surface it, never paper over it.
Golden rule
Never guess — ask. With one limit: anything resolvable by reading the codebase, resolve by reading the codebase; only questions the code cannot settle go to the user.
Steps
Your task is to produce the implementation plan. The steps below build toward it; grilling the user — interviewing relentlessly to resolve anything the code can't settle — is woven through the design, not a separate phase that runs before planning starts.
-
Read the requirements document the user references (e.g. a
*.REQUIREMENTS.md). If the path is ambiguous, ask. -
Verify against the actual codebase. Open the files the requirements cite and confirm the prior-art references still hold; note anything that has shifted since the requirements were written. The requirements may also carry verified codebase facts — use any that are there to save re-discovery work, aware the code may have moved meanwhile (a pinned commit makes the check cheap:
git diff <commit>..HEAD -- <cited paths>). If the requirements gate implementation on missing data or upstream work, verify that gate independently — stale gating claims are a common failure mode and easily inflate into a plan's first step when the data is in fact already addressable. -
Work out the approach. This is the core of the task: design the "how" — what existing code to reuse, what to introduce, where each change goes, and the order of operations that avoids broken intermediate states (data model before its consumers, code before its tests). Track dependencies between steps. Working this out surfaces the decision tree: the forks where more than one reasonable approach exists. Typical forks to design through (and grill on when the code can't settle them): whether to refactor existing code to reuse it or build anew; which API or interface to call; which unit tests to add; code style, file names, and folder structure.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 152 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 76d358a20a76
create-implementation-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository eai-org/agent-toolkit (43 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,049 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
gsd-audit-milestone
Audit milestone completion against original intent before archiving.
spec-kitty-charter-doctrine
Run charter interview, generation, context, and sync workflows for project governance in Spec Kitty 3.x. Access doctrine artifacts programmatically via DoctrineService. Resolve agent profiles. Load action-scoped governance context iteratively, not all at once. Triggers: "interview for charter", "generate charter"…
spec-kitty-spdd-reasons
Drive REASONS Canvas authoring and review for Spec Kitty missions that opted in to Structured-Prompt-Driven Development (SPDD) via charter selection. Triggers: "use SPDD", "use REASONS", "generate a REASONS canvas", "apply structured prompt driven development", "make this mission SPDD". Does NOT handle: enforcing SPDD…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
dependency-upgrade
Plan, batch, and verify dependency upgrades safely. Triages outdated packages into risk tiers, upgrades in order (dev/minor/patch first, runtime majors last), verifies each batch, and produces an auditable commit sequence. Use when asked to "upgrade deps", "bump packages", "update nodemodules", "fix vulnerabilities"…
forensics
Post-mortem a failed GSD auto-mode run. Traces symptom to root cause via .gsd/ activity, journal, metrics, and lock artifacts, producing a filing-ready bug report with file:line refs and a fix suggestion. Use when asked to "forensics", "post-mortem", "why did auto-mode fail", "trace the stuck loop", "debug the crash"…