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 juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os --skill plan-changegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-change)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-change/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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-change.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 11 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00016 | $0.02809 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01404 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00562 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00281 |
Grade A, and why
plan-change 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 11d 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 — 323 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
This command:
- Discovers or confirms the workItemRef (e.g.,
PDEV-123,GH-456) by scanning existing change specs or querying the tracker. - Orients itself in the repository and high-level documentation under
doc/spec/and related docs. - Systematically elicits and refines all information needed by
/write-spec(WHY, outcomes, boundaries, contracts, risks, NFRs, etc.). - Concludes with a compact
<change_planning_summary>plus a clear recommendation to invoke/write-spec <workItemRef>.
This command never writes files or modifies Git state; it operates purely via conversational planning and read-only repository inspection.
<workItemRef_resolution> Primary goal: determine the canonical workItemRef for this planning session.
Resolution rules:
-
If workItemRefHint is provided:
- Validate format: uppercase prefix + hyphen + digits (e.g.,
PDEV-123,GH-456). - Treat as proposed workItemRef; ask user to confirm or override.
- Validate format: uppercase prefix + hyphen + digits (e.g.,
-
If no workItemRefHint:
- Discover existing specs by scanning:
doc/changes/**/chg-*-spec.md. - For each match, parse the workItemRef segment (e.g.,
chg-PDEV-123-spec.md→PDEV-123). - Propose creating a new ticket via
@pmor ask user to provide an existing reference. - If user provides a new reference, validate format and confirm.
- Discover existing specs by scanning:
-
Once confirmed, use workItemRef consistently in all summaries and handoff commands.
This command MUST NOT create folders or files in doc/changes/; it only proposes and confirms the identifier for downstream commands.
</workItemRef_resolution>
<context_sources> The planning agent may read from the repository to ground questions, but must not modify files.
Primary sources:
doc/spec/**: system-level and feature-level specifications.doc/overview/**: domain and product overview documents.doc/decisions/**: architecture decision records.doc/domain/**,doc/diagrams/**: architecture, flows, constraints.- Existing change specs under
doc/changes/**/chg-*-spec.mdfor related changes.
Usage rules:
- When user describes the change, infer domain keywords and search documentation.
- Summarize only relevant parts in concise bullets; do not paste large documents.
- Quote document titles and short excerpts; ask user to confirm context anchors.
- Treat existing specs and ADRs as authoritative constraints unless explicitly revisiting. </context_sources>
<session_flow>
-
Initialization & orientation
- Confirm single repository scope and target service/app.
- Resolve and confirm workItemRef using workItemRef_resolution.
- Ask for short, plain-language description of the desired change.
- If ideaSeed provided, restate for confirmation.
-
Clarify problem and context
- Elicit: current state, pain points, affected users, triggers, constraints.
- Probe for singular, measurable problem statement.
- Identify change type: feat|fix|refactor|docs|test|chore|perf|build|ci|revert|style.
-
Define goals and success metrics
- Separate: business goals, user goals, operational goals.
- For each goal, elicit measurable success metric (baseline, target, window).
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 323 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A b150e81209f1
plan-change is a skill published in the GitHub repository juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 2,809 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
Verification & Quality Assurance
Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.
agent-github-modes
Agent skill for github-modes - invoke with $agent-github-modes.
workflow-automation
Workflow creation, execution, and template management. Automates complex multi-step processes with agent coordination. Use when: automating processes, creating reusable workflows, orchestrating multi-step tasks. Skip when: simple single-step tasks, ad-hoc operations.
deployment-pipeline-design
Design multi-stage CI/CD pipelines with approval gates, security checks, and deployment orchestration. Use this skill when designing zero-downtime deployment pipelines, implementing canary rollout strategies, setting up multi-environment promotion workflows, or debugging failed deployment gates in CI/CD.
gitlab-ci-patterns
Build GitLab CI/CD pipelines with multi-stage workflows, caching, and distributed runners for scalable automation. Use when implementing GitLab CI/CD, optimizing pipeline performance, or setting up automated testing and deployment.
bazel-build-optimization
Optimize Bazel builds for large-scale monorepos. Use when configuring Bazel, implementing remote execution, or optimizing build performance for enterprise codebases.