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 itseffi/agentic-os --skill writing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/itseffi/agentic-osWrote 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/itseffi/agentic-os/writing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/itseffi/agentic-os/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/itseffi/agentic-os/writing-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/itseffi/agentic-os/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/itseffi/agentic-os/writing-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 | $0.00519 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00208 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00104 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00052 |
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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Plans
Use when you have requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code.
Overview
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the reader has zero context. Document everything: which files to touch, code snippets, testing steps, verification commands. Break into bite-sized tasks.
Bite-Sized Task Granularity
Each step is one action (2-5 minutes):
- "Write the failing test" - step
- "Run it to make sure it fails" - step
- "Implement the minimal code to make the test pass" - step
- "Run the tests and make sure they pass" - step
- "Commit" - step
Plan Document Header
Every plan should start with:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
---
Task Structure
### Task N: [Component Name]
**Files:**
- Create: `exact/path/to/file.py`
- Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.py:123-145`
- Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.py`
**Step 1: Write the failing test**
```python
def test_specific_behavior():
result = function(input)
assert result == expected
Step 2: Run test to verify it fails
Run: pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v
Expected: FAIL with "function not defined"
Step 3: Write minimal implementation
def function(input):
return expected
Step 4: Run test to verify it passes
Run: pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v
Expected: PASS
Step 5: Commit
git add tests/path/test.py src/path/file.py
git commit -m "feat: add specific feature"
## Remember
- Exact file paths always
- Complete code in plan (not "add validation")
- Exact commands with expected output
- DRY, YAGNI, TDD, frequent commits
## When to Use
Use this skill when the task directly matches the workflow described above.
## When Not to Use
Do not use this skill when the request is unrelated, low-stakes, or better handled by a simpler direct response.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 96 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 98d872becb4b
writing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository itseffi/agentic-os (117 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 519 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
reviewcourt
A review tool for completed Tencent Meeting requirements or technical-plan meetings. It turns the meeting notes and transcript into a verdict, such as approved, conditionally approved, rejected, or lacking enough information.
vague-requirement-unpacker
A planning aid for turning a vague business request into questions, a narrowed scenario, and an initial scope outline. It is meant for early alignment before a full PRD, or product requirements document, exists.
competitive-product-research
A research workflow for comparing products and explaining how they differ. It examines user experience and business strategy, then produces a report in HTML or Markdown with traceable sources.
opc-board
A review skill for testing whether a one-person business, side project, or open-source idea is practical. Five advisers score its logic, ability to be delivered, growth potential, viability, and risks, then give a Go or No-Go result.
pm-requirement-review-simulator
A rehearsal for reviewing a product requirements document, or PRD—a written description of what a product or feature should do. Five cross-functional roles challenge the requirements before the real meeting.
ide-briefing-ppt
Generates a single-file 1280x720 HTML presentation by reusing the frozen Light IDE visual system extracted from LLM Wiki 分享.html. Use only when the user names ide-briefing-ppt, asks to reuse that deck's UI, or explicitly requests the combined light-gray canvas, white panels, amber accent, terminal, and file-tree…