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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/writing-plansnpx skills add JeremyDev87/codingbuddy --skill writing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JeremyDev87/codingbuddyWrote 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/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/writing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jeremydev87/codingbuddy/writing-plans.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00021 | $0.01425 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00713 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00143 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 195 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: This should be run in a dedicated worktree (created by brainstorming skill).
Save plans to: docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
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 MUST start with this header:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan
> **For Claude:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.
**Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
**Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
**Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]
## Alternatives
### [Decision: e.g. State Management Approach]
| Criteria | Approach A: [Name] | Approach B: [Name] |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ... | ... |
| Complexity | ... | ... |
| Maintainability | ... | ... |
**Decision:** [Chosen approach] — [One-line rationale]
---
Alternatives Exploration
Every non-trivial decision in the plan MUST include at least two approaches with trade-off analysis.
What counts as non-trivial:
- Architecture choices (e.g. where to put new code)
- Data flow design (e.g. state management approach)
- API design (e.g. endpoint structure, payload shape)
- Testing strategy (e.g. unit vs integration)
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.
- yesterday First seen · 195 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 64410a35d8a0
writing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository JeremyDev87/codingbuddy (31 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,425 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
ring:migrating-to-lib-observability
Migrating a Lerian Go app off lib-commons observability imports (deprecated shims or removed APIs) to lib-observability via a fixed mapping table, then bumps go.mod and validates the build; ring:backend-go applies the edits. Covers log/zap/runtime/assert, opentelemetry/tracing, HTTP middleware, context helpers, and…
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…
ring:exploring-codebases
Exploring a codebase across phases: scopes the target, detects architecture, components, and layers, deep-dives each discovered perspective, then synthesizes findings into actionable guidance with file:line evidence. Use to understand how a feature or system works before planning changes, or to orient on an unfamiliar…
ring:instrumenting-streaming-events
Instrumenting streaming events: wires lib-streaming event emission end-to-end into a Lerian Go service via a 13-gate cycle (catalog, Builder bootstrap, Emit sites, outbox, HTTP manifest, NoopEmitter fallback, integration and chaos tests), dispatching ring:backend-go under TDD. Consumes the validated…
ring:planning-codebase-simplification
Planning a whole-codebase simplification: audits a Go/TS codebase for needless abstraction and emits a KILL/REVIEW/KEEP plan plus a ring:running-dev-cycle task array. Plans only — no edits. Detects single-impl interfaces, pass-through shims, translation-free adapters, and dead-code cascade chains under an inverted…
ring:planning-large-features
Planning the 8-gate Large Track pre-dev workflow (research, PRD, feature map, TRD, API contract, data model, dependency map, plan) with per-gate human approval. Use for features 2+ days that add dependencies, data models, multi-service integration, or new architecture. Skip for small features (use…