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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issuenpx skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill plan-feature-from-issuegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflowWrote 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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/plan-feature-from-issue.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00045 | $0.02199 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01099 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00440 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00220 |
Grade A, and why
plan-feature-from-issue 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 today.
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 — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Feature — From Issue (internal)
Convert a feature-request issue into the project's planning artifacts, keeping a
clean issue → SPEC → PR(Closes #n) trace. Writes the SPEC's product half
(same two-halves convention design-feature uses) and must satisfy capability
closure before handing off — a thin issue does not get a shortcut around it.
This skill stops at the Product half. It designs, then the unit goes to
review-spec for an independent Product review; engineering planning is a
different authority's turn. Composing plan-feature-scaffold in the same breath
as the design it just wrote is the bypass this separation exists to close — the
author of a Product half cannot be the one who decides it is ready to build on.
When to use
- The
plan-featurerouter calls this when the input is a GitHub issue (or--from-issue N) that describes new product capability.
If the issue is a bug or tech-debt, stop and route it: triage-issue to
classify, then plan-fix + execute-phase --fix. This skill is for
genuine features only.
Step 0 — Discover the project (always first)
Per the agent guide's Workflow conventions + documentation map, then read
what THIS skill needs: the feature SPEC template, the roadmap, and the issue/PR
templates (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/, .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md) so the
SPEC mirrors the fields reviewers expect. Then read the issue (forge CLI per the
project's Workflow conventions — examples use gh):
gh issue view <N> --json number,title,body,labels,state,comments
Process
- Classify first. Confirm it is a feature. Not a feature if it describes a
defect, regression, duplicated code, perf debt, or carries a "when to
fix / trigger" clause → hand to
triage-issue. State the verdict explicitly. - Normalize language. If not in the project's docs language (this repo: English), translate before drafting any artifact.
- Map to the roadmap. Assign the next number + slug. Identify dependencies and conflicts with existing features, coupling/migration risks, and whether it should instead extend an existing feature.
- Close product-half gaps proactively. Compare the issue against what a
complete SPEC product half needs (goals, scope in/out, business goals,
i18n/SEO/a11y/pricing per the docs map, a UI design reference when the
feature has a UI surface), probing the same fixed vagueness rubric
design-feature's interview uses: affected users/roles · error & edge states · data shape · boundaries & limits · out of scope · success criteria — each slot filled or explicitn/a: <reason>. For each genuine gap you can't safely default, ask the user one question per turn, never batched, each with a recommended default; never ask what the issue or docs already answer. Structural hand-off threshold: if ≥ 3 rubric slots remain unfillable from the issue plus the answers so far, stop and hand the feature todesign-feature(the thin-issue rule below, now with a fixed trigger) instead of continuing to interview here. - Satisfy capability closure. Walk the same fixed checklist
design-featureuses (per entity: CRUD + state transitions, each with UI + API + test, or explicitn/a: <reason>; per capability: entry point + ACL; per role: assigned/revoked/viewed where) into the SPEC's## Capability closureand## Acceptance criteria. A thin issue that doesn't carry enough to fill it is not a shortcut around the gate — hand it todesign-feature(compose in-turn only at ≥ this skill's tier, per Guardrails; otherwise hand off withrun /design-feature <slug>and stop here) rather than stampingdesignedon a hollow closure. - Size it. Estimate
XS / S / M / L(scale defined in the SPEC template) and record it in the SPEC. XS/S → the SPEC is the only planning artifact (single-pass execution); M/L → full artifact set. If L, propose splitting. - Produce the SPEC product half. Fill it and stamp
## Design status: designedonce closure is complete; set the roadmap row (added atideafirst if it didn't exist) todefinedin the same edit — the sameidea → definedtransitiondesign-featureowns, performed here when this skill is the one that satisfies closure. Then run thestage: specreadiness preflight from the internalevidence-groundingcapability, mint the currentartifactRevisionId, and stop: this skill never continues into the engineering half, never promotes the row pastdefined, and never composesplan-feature-scaffoldin this turn. Theplan-featurerouter may scaffold only afterreview-specreturns a currentspec-review-passreceipt bound to these exact bytes. - Wire traceability. Record
#Nin the SPEC; the PR body must includeCloses #Nso the issue closes on merge. - Hand off — return exactly (fixed completion report, back to the router):
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.
- today Changed · +22 lines a63cc2b904c1
- 5d ago First seen · 141 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 9afd80a8181c
plan-feature-from-issue is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,199 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
offensive-mitigations
Security mitigation reference and bypass catalog: ASLR, DEP/NX, RELRO, stack canaries, CFI, sandboxing, seccomp. Covers both detection of enabled mitigations and known bypass techniques. Use when assessing target hardening or planning exploit mitigation bypasses.
offensive-exploit-development
Exploit development operational guide: environment setup, debugging workflow, PoC development lifecycle, writing reliable exploits, using pwntools/pwndbg, heap exploitation techniques, and weaponization considerations. Use when actively developing exploits or setting up an exploit dev environment.
offensive-advanced-redteam
Comprehensive red team operations methodology covering full engagement lifecycle from planning through reporting. Addresses engagement scoping and rules of engagement negotiation, multi-tier C2 infrastructure design with redirectors and domain fronting, malleable traffic profiles and beacon tradecraft, OPSEC…
offensive-dependency-confusion
Deep-dive offensive methodology for dependency confusion and namespace attacks across all major package ecosystems. Covers npm scope confusion exploiting the gap between public and private scoped packages and .npmrc misconfigurations where registry mappings fail to pin internal scopes exclusively. Addresses PyPI…
offensive-phishing
Phishing campaign execution methodology for authorized red team engagements. Covers end-to-end campaign lifecycle: infrastructure provisioning (GoPhish, SMTP relay configuration, domain acquisition and aging, SPF/DKIM/DMARC alignment), payload delivery vectors (Office macro weaponization, HTA droppers, ISO/IMG…
offensive-active-directory
Active Directory attack methodology for internal network red team engagements. Covers reconnaissance (BloodHound, PowerView, ADExplorer), credential abuse (Kerberoasting, ASREProasting, NTLM relay, LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning), privilege escalation (ACL abuse, GPO abuse, unconstrained/constrained delegation), lateral…