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/itmisx/deepx-code/writing-plansnpx skills add itmisx/deepx-code --skill writing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/itmisx/deepx-codeWhat 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 | $0.00030 | $0.01409 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00705 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00282 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00141 |
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 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
83% identical to writing-plans — 33 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 — 153 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: If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the superpowers:using-git-worktrees skill at execution time.
Save plans to: docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
Scope Check
If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
File Structure
Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 153 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 4822b5c00125
writing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository itmisx/deepx-code (383 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,409 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to writing-plans, differing in 33 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
ai-style
当任务是用中文撰写或改写面向读者的文案（产品发布稿、公众号文章、邮件、README 等）， 或用户反馈文字「AI 味太重」「不像人写的」时，加载本 Skill。.
writing
将共享历史中的已验证事实和计算结果整理成符合受众、格式与长度约束的成稿。.
data_analysis
基于已确认数据执行可审计的数学计算和描述统计。.
review
Use when asked to review a codebase or a change, or when the /review command runs — assess design, correctness, maintainability, and test coverage with actionable feedback.
pr-comments
Use when the user asks to review pull request comments, or when the /pr-comments command runs — fetch and analyze PR review comments on the current branch and summarize actionable items.
dsh-doc-site-sync
Use when publishing, updating, moving, or removing DeepSeek Harness documentation website pages; editing website/docs.ts mappings or navigation; diagnosing a page missing from the VitePress site; fixing projected documentation links; or running the docs:dev, docs:check, and doc-sync workflow after website-content…