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 iliaal/whetstone --skill ia-planninggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iliaal/whetstoneWrote 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/iliaal/whetstone/ia-planning)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-planning/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/iliaal/whetstone/ia-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-planning.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 | $0.00060 | $0.01032 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
ia-planning 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to planning — 2 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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Planning
Produce the smallest plan that reduces implementation risk and preserves state costly to reconstruct. User requirements and verified facts govern the plan; a reference implementation supplies evidence about behavior, not independent authority to change scope.
Procedure
- Define the concrete outcome, evidence, binary or quantitative success threshold, scope boundaries, and stop conditions. If the request already names an artifact and success signal, use them. Otherwise repair activity-only goals before planning.
- Separate the objective from the proposed mechanism: would the goal remain valid if the implementation changed? Ensure a colleague can understand the objective alone and verify it without knowing component internals.
- Choose a full durable plan for interdependent phases, recovery needs, or work crossing context limits; an inline list for clear work fitting one session; direct implementation for clear scope and acceptance criteria. File and tool-call counts are signals, not triggers. Inspect hidden decisions such as cache TTL, invalidation, and key shape before treating work as simple.
- Inspect existing tests, canonical commands, related code, and any existing brainstorm specification. Extend repository patterns. Record significant architectural tradeoffs in its ADR convention when needed.
- Define files, ownership, interface contracts, dependencies, concrete tasks, verification, and exit conditions. Organize phases around runnable capabilities with implementation and tests together. Put high-variance decisions before mechanical work; keep execution dependencies in phase order.
- Verify the plan against the user's requirements. Keep phase status and next step consistent. Never weaken acceptance criteria to match incomplete code or add speculative checks and machinery.
- Deliver the plan when planning alone was requested. Continue implementation when already authorized. Ask about execution mode only if it materially changes cost, risk, isolation, or review quality.
What ships with it
9 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.
- references/execution-and-methodology.md 4.5 KB
- references/execution-handoff.md 3.1 KB
- references/goal-definition.md 4.8 KB
- references/operational-patterns.md 3.7 KB
- references/plan-deepening.md 2.0 KB
- references/plan-format.md 7.0 KB
- references/task-design.md 3.1 KB
- scripts/init-plan.sh 1.8 KB runs code
- SPEC.md 4.4 KB
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 Changed · -186 lines ec3164449588
- 3d ago First seen · 235 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 16ef1826353e
ia-planning is a skill published in the GitHub repository iliaal/whetstone (33 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 1,032 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to planning, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-responder
Use when receiving feedback on code you implemented, responding to reviewer comments, deciding which review suggestions to implement, or pushing back on incorrect review feedback.
pr-sweep
Use when you want to sweep all open pull requests across all repos, triage their status, run code reviews on unreviewed PRs, merge what's ready, fix quick blockers, and produce a full status report. Trigger when the user says "check my PRs", "close out open PRs", "what's the status of my PRs", "sweep my PRs", "PR…
rubber-ducky
Use when you've planned a non-trivial change and are about to implement it, finished a complex or multi-file piece of work, just wrote tests, or are stuck on repeated failures — and any time the user says "rubber duck this", "rubber ducky", "get a second opinion", "sanity-check my plan", "poke holes in this", "what am…
open-pr
Use when wrapping up a development task and getting a PR ready — runs local tests, creates a PR (if one doesn't exist) with a structured description template, conducts a code review via the review skill, and checks CI status with quick fixes. Trigger when the user says they're done with a feature, want to open a PR…
review
Use when user invokes /review to review code changes. Also triggers on "review my code", "check this PR", "look at my changes". Accepts a PR number (e.g. /review 123), a path filter (e.g. /review src/auth/), or no argument (reviews current branch vs base). Produces structured per-file review with severity labels…
claude-friends
Ask AIs from other families to review something before you commit to it. User-triggered, never automatic. Fires when the user signals uncertainty or asks for another perspective: 'ask a friend', 'second opinion', 'sanity check', 'cross-check', 'am I missing something', 'stress-test this', 'critique this', 'devil's…