Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lantisprime/claude-sdlcnpx agentmods add skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/planWrote 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/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/plan/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/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lantisprime/claude-sdlc/plan.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 | $0.00130 | $0.02847 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.01139 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00569 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00285 |
Grade A, and why
plan 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 — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan (Phase 1)
Produce a plan artifact before any code is touched. The plan-gate hook blocks Edit/Write until this file exists.
Step 1 — Classify the work item
Ask (or infer from context) which of these the request is:
- New build — a new feature or capability not previously delivered
- Fix — a correction to existing behavior
- Change request (CR) — a modification to previously agreed scope
The classification drives different validation downstream (Phase 4 Build).
Step 2 — Resolve scope
If .claude/sdlc/scope.md exists and is signed: read it and proceed. Run a quick re-validation check — if the plan task looks materially different from what scope.md describes, invoke scope-ingest in re-validate mode and surface the drift report before continuing.
If .claude/sdlc/scope.md does not exist: ask the human to point at source material (file path or paste text). Then invoke the scope-ingest agent, which produces a draft at .claude/sdlc/scope-drafts/<timestamp>.md. Show the draft to the human and wait for review. The human copies/renames it to .claude/sdlc/scope.md and signs it before the plan proceeds.
Fallback — no source material: if the human has no source to point at, ask for a one-paragraph scope statement and write .claude/sdlc/scope.md directly (existing behavior, preserved for minimal-friction cases).
Then validate the resolved scope against the work item:
- New build: confirm the request is within documented scope. If not, surface a scope-delta and ask the human whether to (a) treat as a CR, (b) expand scope, or (c) defer.
- Fix: confirm the fix addresses in-scope behavior. An out-of-scope fix is a CR in disguise.
- CR: require a change-request ID. If missing, create one under
.claude/sdlc/change-requests/CR-<n>.mdusingtemplates/change-request.mdand ask the human for sign-off before continuing.
See agents/scope-ingest.md for accepted source formats and draft output spec.
Step 2.5 — Domain expert check
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 · 193 lines · 130 tokens per session scan A 05e7595e4ac6
plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository lantisprime/claude-sdlc (3 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 130 tokens to every session and 2,847 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
moai-workflow-thinking
Sequential Thinking MCP for structured step-by-step analysis via --deepthink flag. Separate from UltraThink which is Claude's native extended reasoning mode. Use for multi-step analysis or architecture decisions.
xcode-workflows
Xcode build system guidance for xcodebuild operations. Use when building iOS projects, running tests, analyzing build failures, or configuring schemes. Covers build/clean/test operations, interpreting xcodebuild output, and troubleshooting common build errors.
check-pr
Read-only inspection of a single GitHub PR lifecycle — checks CI, review feedback (threads, review bodies, top-level comments), description sync, and mergeability, and returns PASS or FAIL with per-gate findings. Never invokes the merge button. Use when verifying a PR is ready to merge, polling lifecycle progress…
goga-define-experience
Define the user experience required to achieve the established product goals and solve the identified problem.
goga-define-resolve
Resolve product-level conflicts discovered during the definition process.
review-depth
Experimental declared review depth for linked-intent development. Use when a LID project's instruction file declares a review depth in prose (e.g. "Review depth - I review through LLD; below that, consolidate to one review") or the user asks to batch phase reviews, consolidate stops, or let go below a phase depth.…