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/jtsang4/efficient-coding/writing-plansnpx skills add jtsang4/efficient-coding --skill writing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jtsang4/efficient-codingWhat 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 | $0.00850 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00425 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00085 |
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
88% identical to writing-plans — 6 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 — 119 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.
- Delegate worktree creation/switching to
worktree-manager. - Default intent: the worktree should copy the current working state so the plan can be executed without disturbing the original workspace.
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]
---
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"
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 · 119 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 6ea82acb62ba
writing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository jtsang4/efficient-coding (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 850 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to writing-plans, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
feishu
Work with Feishu or Lark bots, docs, sheets, bitables, approval flows, and OpenAPI/MCP setup without hardcoding credentials.
interview
Ask one useful structured question at a time only when material product/implementation choices are genuinely missing; remember answers and produce a brief/spec. Discoverable facts should be investigated instead of asked.
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。.
test
Detect the project’s test stack, run the narrowest useful tests, create tests when authorized, and report coverage/gaps honestly.
verify
Exercise the real app/API/CLI and collect observable evidence; tests alone do not count as end-to-end verification.
build-teaql-app
Build or change a TeaQL application in Java, Rust, Go, Swift, Python, C#/.NET, or TypeScript, including Kotlin/JVM applications that consume Java-generated libraries. Mandatory order: first draft and save a complete KSML model, then verify the client and evaluate that saved model, repair it through repeated evaluation…