Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to florian101010/awesome-agentic-AI-coding-template. 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/florian101010/awesome-agentic-AI-coding-template/main/.agent/skills/writing-plans/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/florian101010/awesome-agentic-AI-coding-templateWrote 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/florian101010/awesome-agentic-ai-coding-template/writing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/florian101010/awesome-agentic-ai-coding-template/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/florian101010/awesome-agentic-ai-coding-template/writing-plans/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/florian101010/awesome-agentic-ai-coding-template/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/florian101010/awesome-agentic-ai-coding-template/writing-plans.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00795 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00398 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
writing-plans 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to writing-plans — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 117 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Plans
Overview
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our 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 our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
Context: This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
Save plans to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
Bite-Sized Task Granularity
Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):
- "Write the failing test" - step
- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
- "Commit" - step
Plan Document Header
Every plan MUST start with this header:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For Claude:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
---
Task Structure
### Task N: [Component Name]
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
**Step 1: Write the failing test**
```python
def test_specific_behavior():
result = function(input)
assert result == expected
```
**Step 2: Run test to verify it fails**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
**Step 3: Write minimal implementation**
```python
def function(input):
return expected
```
**Step 4: Run test to verify it passes**
Run: `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v`
Expected: PASS
**Step 5: Commit**
```bash
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
```
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 · 117 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 8a9198d4d9ef
writing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository florian101010/awesome-agentic-AI-coding-template (4 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 795 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to writing-plans, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
arxiv
Search, download, and summarize academic papers from arXiv. Use when user says "search arxiv", "download paper", "fetch arxiv", "arxiv search", "get paper pdf", or wants to find and save papers from arXiv to the local paper library.
analyzing-network-covert-channels-in-malware
Detect and analyze covert communication channels used by malware including DNS tunneling, ICMP exfiltration, steganographic HTTP, and protocol abuse for C2 and data exfiltration.
analyzing-windows-lnk-files-for-artifacts
Parse Windows LNK shortcut files to extract target paths, timestamps, volume information, and machine identifiers for forensic timeline reconstruction.
analyzing-powershell-script-block-logging
Parse Windows PowerShell Script Block Logs (Event ID 4104) from EVTX files to detect obfuscated commands, encoded payloads, and living-off-the-land techniques. Uses python-evtx to extract and reconstruct multi-block scripts, applies entropy analysis and pattern matching for Base64-encoded commands, Invoke-Expression…
analyzing-command-and-control-communication
Analyzes malware command-and-control (C2) communication protocols to understand beacon patterns, command structures, data encoding, and infrastructure. Covers HTTP, HTTPS, DNS, and custom protocol C2 analysis for detection development and threat intelligence. Activates for requests involving C2 analysis, beacon…
analyzing-usb-device-connection-history
Investigate USB device connection history from Windows registry, event logs, and setupapi logs to track removable media usage and potential data exfiltration.