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 EvolveHQ/docflow --skill new-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EvolveHQ/docflowWrote 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/evolvehq/docflow/new-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/evolvehq/docflow/new-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evolvehq/docflow/new-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/evolvehq/docflow/new-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evolvehq/docflow/new-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 | $0.00118 | $0.01655 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00662 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00331 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00166 |
Grade A, and why
new-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 11d 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 — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
new-plan
Add one item to the implementation queue.
Step 0 — Preconditions and context
- Confirm the repo is bootstrapped and a
plan/queue exists. If the repo was bootstrapped without a plan folder (Q4a = skip), stop and say so — there is no queue to add to. - Read
CONVENTIONS.mdfor the plan-folder convention and the completion event, andplan/README.mdif present. Resolveplan/against the artefact root recorded there (default: repository root). ls plan/todo/to learn the queue's priority ordering, and read the titles inplan/done/as well: shipped items keep their number only in the title (the filename carries a date). The next number is one above the highest number used in either place — an empty queue does not restart the sequence, and numbers are never reused.
Step 0.5 — Assessment (run first)
Run the shared assessment protocol before queueing:
- Reuse supplied answers first. Treat applicable choices already supplied in the request or this session, including depth, as answered. Summarise them without asking again; defaults never replace explicit choices. If every material choice is supplied, proceed. Ask only about a material missing or conflicting choice. A repository preference alone is not a current answer or execution grant.
- Depth selector for unresolved choices. If depth is not supplied and
choices remain, ask how deep this assessment should go:
express — every choice takes its recommended default; only
questions with no derivable default (the free-text essentials) are
still asked; guided — only the questions marked high-impact
below, plus the free-text essentials; full — every question
below. If the repo's
CONVENTIONS.mdrecords anAssessment depth:, pre-select it as the recommended option when asking; a recorded depth is never applied silently. Otherwise recommend full when the request arrived with little or no context and express when it is already fully specified. At any question the operator may answer "defaults from here" or "go deeper"; honour the switch immediately.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 11d ago Changed · +8 lines 8a2690887cf3
- 1mo ago Changed · +35 lines b2c50295a277
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines 9ac4c2faa43d
- 1mo ago First seen · 94 lines · 118 tokens per session scan A 7891ed001b7a
new-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository EvolveHQ/docflow (16 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 1,655 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
adr-integration
This skill should be used when the user asks about "ADR integration", "ADR CI/CD", "ADR tooling", "ADR automation", "export ADRs", "ADR documentation site", or needs guidance on integrating ADRs with CI/CD, documentation sites, and other tools.
adr-decision-drivers
This skill should be used when the user asks about "decision drivers", "architectural forces", "quality attributes", "how to identify trade-offs", "non-functional requirements for ADRs", or needs help identifying, documenting, and weighing the forces that influence architectural decisions.
adr-compliance
This skill should be used when the user asks about "ADR compliance", "architecture compliance", "ADR audit", "enforce ADRs", "check code against ADRs", "ADR violations", or needs guidance on auditing code compliance with accepted architectural decision records.
adr-fundamentals
This skill should be used when the user asks "what is an ADR", "when should I create an ADR", "ADR best practices", "architecture decision records", "ADR lifecycle", "how to document architecture decisions", or needs guidance on ADR fundamentals, when to create ADRs, or ADR lifecycle management.
adr-quality
This skill should be used when the user asks about "ADR quality", "review ADR", "ADR checklist", "improve ADR", "ADR validation", "good ADR examples", or needs guidance on evaluating, improving, and maintaining high-quality architectural decision records.
atlas-adr
Write an Architecture Decision Record — document what was decided, why, what alternatives were considered, and what trade-offs were accepted. Use when asked to "write an ADR", "document this decision", or "why did we choose X".