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/hoavdc/codexkit/codexkit-execution-plannernpx skills add hoavdc/CodexKit --skill codexkit-execution-plannergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hoavdc/CodexKitWhat 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 | $0.00028 | $0.00455 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00228 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00091 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
codexkit-execution-planner 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.
What it actually says
Execution Planner
Use this skill when the request is larger than a quick patch and needs a plan that can survive real implementation.
Principles
- keep the plan close to the code that will change
- make assumptions explicit
- sequence work to reduce rework
- define how success will be checked
Workflow
- Restate the user goal in operational language.
- List constraints, dependencies, and assumptions.
- Break the work into thin, testable slices.
- Define acceptance checks for each slice.
- Note rollback or containment options for risky steps.
Output structure
Use the template in references/plan-template.md.
Avoid
- task lists with no verification strategy
- plans that front-load polish before foundations
- broad estimates with no dependency reasoning
Quality Criteria
- All placeholder sections are filled with domain-specific content
- Structure follows the relevant industry standard or framework
- Language matches target audience (technical / executive / legal)
- Output is ready for review — not a rough draft requiring major rework
Verification (4C)
| Check | Question |
|---|---|
| Correctness | Does the draft structure follow the stated framework or industry standard? |
| Completeness | Are all required sections present with substantive (not placeholder) content? |
| Context-fit | Does tone, detail level, and terminology match the intended audience? |
| Consequence | If sent to the intended recipient without further editing, what would fail? |
Edge Cases
- No existing template for this type — Use the closest available template and document all customizations made.
- Stakeholder requirements conflict — Flag conflicts explicitly in the draft. Do not silently choose one requirement over another.
- Output required in multiple formats — Produce the canonical format first, then derive others. Note any formatting limitations.
Changelog
- v1.0.0 — Initial release
What ships with it
5 files 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 62 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 2c6d79a330bf
codexkit-execution-planner is a skill published in the GitHub repository hoavdc/CodexKit (21 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 455 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
reducing-aigc-detection
Systematically reduce AIGC detection rates in academic papers (Chinese/English). Analyzes detection reports, identifies high-impact sections, applies multi-layer rewriting strategies preserving formatting/footnotes, and verifies results. Supports 维普/知网/Turnitin platforms.
defending-applications
Application security defense knowledge for builders. Covers Web/API/GraphQL hardening (XSS/SQLi/SSRF/IDOR/BOLA/Mass Assignment/deserialization/upload/path traversal), authentication/authorization (OAuth 2.0/OIDC/JWT/Session/Cookie/SAML/SSO), and LLM application security (prompt injection, jailbreak, RAG poisoning…
analyzing-security
Scans code for security vulnerabilities, detects dangerous patterns, and ensures security decisions are documented. Use when running security scans, auditing code, or checking for OWASP issues, injection risks, or sensitive data leaks. Automatically triggered on new modules, security-related changes, or post-refactor.
architecting-security
安全架构与治理：威胁建模 (STRIDE/PASTA/LINDDUN)、零信任身份架构、IAM/SSO/MFA/PAM、合规框架 (SOC2/PCI/HIPAA/GDPR)、DLP、隐私工程、安全控制设计。Use when designing security architecture, threat modeling new systems, implementing zero-trust identity, designing IAM/SSO/PAM, building compliance evidence chains, or planning privacy-by-design.
building-agent-systems
AI agent and LLM system engineering reference covering single-agent dev (ReAct, tool calling, plan-execute), multi-agent coordination (swarm, role decomposition, file locking), LLM security (prompt injection, jailbreak defense, output filtering), RAG architecture (chunking, hybrid retrieval, rerank), and prompt…
checking-code-quality
Checks code quality metrics including complexity, duplication, naming conventions, and function length. Use when running quality gates, reviewing code smells, or checking lint rules. Automatically triggered on complex modules or post-refactor.