Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to HumanBean17/jrag. 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/HumanBean17/jrag/master/.agents/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HumanBean17/jragWrote 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/humanbean17/jrag/executing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/humanbean17/jrag/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/humanbean17/jrag/executing-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/humanbean17/jrag/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/humanbean17/jrag/executing-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 | $0.00022 | $0.00562 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00225 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
executing-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 2mo 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
89% identical to executing-plans — 341 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Executing Plans
Overview
Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
Announce at start: "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
Note: Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Codex App, and Copilot CLI all qualify; see the per-platform tool refs in ../using-superpowers/references/). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
The Process
Step 1: Load and Review Plan
- Read plan file
- Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
- If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
- If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed
Step 2: Execute Tasks
For each task:
- Mark as in_progress
- Follow each step exactly (plan has bite-sized steps)
- Run verifications as specified
- Mark as completed
Step 3: Complete Development
After all tasks complete and verified:
- Announce: "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
- REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch
- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, execute choice
When to Stop and Ask for Help
STOP executing immediately when:
- Hit a blocker (missing dependency, test fails, instruction unclear)
- Plan has critical gaps preventing starting
- You don't understand an instruction
- Verification fails repeatedly
Ask for clarification rather than guessing.
When to Revisit Earlier Steps
Return to Review (Step 1) when:
- Partner updates the plan based on your feedback
- Fundamental approach needs rethinking
Don't force through blockers - stop and ask.
Remember
- Review plan critically first
- Follow plan steps exactly
- Don't skip verifications
- Reference skills when plan says to
- Stop when blocked, don't guess
- Never start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 71 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A bbd8d28bb655
executing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository HumanBean17/jrag (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 562 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to executing-plans, differing in 341 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…
feedback-resolution
Address PR review feedback through surgical fixes traceable to specific comments, apply the Boy Scout Rule only to already-modified files (separate improve: commits), recover context by code snippet rather than line number, and enforce pushback only when factually incorrect, test-breaking, or CLAUDE.md-violating. Use…
holdout-validation
Cross-reference agent self-review claims and evidence-bundle entries against actual file state using hidden holdout scenarios, producing P1/P2/P3 findings mapped to visible acceptance criteria only. Checks that every expected value in the tests has the source the bundle claims and that every risk-map row has a…
code-review-methodology
Conduct two-stage code review: Stage 1 verifies spec compliance (criterion-to-code mapping), Stage 2 evaluates security, correctness, performance, and maintainability across 6 parallel facets with P1/P2/P3 synthesis and deduplication by file:line. For the Tests facet the reviewer derives expected behavior from the…
team-coordination
Coordinate agent teams for adversarial review (paired skeptic/verifier per facet, disposition-only challenge round, mechanical consolidation with confidence) or parallel implementation (5-6 non-overlapping tasks per teammate). Enforces independent analysis before shared conclusions. Reference only…
thanos-doctrine
The Thanos review method, a Steve Jobs-style simplicity review for code diffs, design documents and architecture. Use whenever reviewing or rethinking code, designs or architecture as Thanos, or when /snap or /rethink is invoked.