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 marconae/speq-skill --skill speq-planninggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/marconae/speq-skillWrote 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/marconae/speq-skill/speq-planning)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marconae/speq-skill/speq-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marconae/speq-skill/speq-planning/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/marconae/speq-skill/speq-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marconae/speq-skill/speq-planning.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00035 | $0.02972 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01189 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00594 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00297 |
Grade A, and why
speq-planning 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 today.
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 — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Authoring
Guiding Principles
- BDD (Gherkin syntax): scenarios use GIVEN/WHEN/THEN; integration tests by default, unit tests only for isolated pure computation
- RFC 2119 keywords: THEN steps use MUST, MUST NOT, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY (uppercase)
Rules
- Read-only investigation: planning reads existing code, tests, specs, and docs. It never builds the software, runs a test suite, starts Docker or an e2e run, or launches the software. Plan the commands to run; do not run them.
- Short Background:
## Backgroundis a concise summary of the context every scenario shares, 3-5 one-line bullets at most. It never encodes features, behavior, or requirements; each of those is a scenario (or a step in one). When a change adds behavior, add or change a scenario, not a Background line. When you rewrite a Background that has grown past this, cut it down in the sameDELTA:CHANGEDblock. - Architecture by delta: never edit
specs/architecture.md;/speq-recordmerges the delta. When the plan changes no architecture, write no delta. - Proof is tests and manual runs:
speqcommands (speq plan validate,speq feature get) check the plan, not the product, so never list them as test or manual evidence. - One copy: never embed spec content in
plan.mdordecision-log.md; reference the delta files. Write each artifact once, then change it withEdit, and do not re-read a file you wrote this run. - Specs describe the software, not its tests: a spec delta states features, behavior, and constraints of the software. Never encode e2e tests, test suites, Docker setups, or the test environment as scenarios or Background; they say how to verify the software, not what it does.
specs/mission.mdencodes how to test (suites, commands, environment), so reference it from the plan's Verification section. - Local notes:
notes/planning.mdis local scratch. It is never committed and never evidence.
Workflow
0. Read Budget
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.
- today Changed · -7 lines · -10 tokens per session 046ed83a3502
- 11d ago Changed · +1 tokens per session ce1f659ae671
- 18d ago Changed · -12 lines 8b5bca6a040a
- 21d ago Changed · +15 lines 9c918ef49d9a
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines de08e19fbfac
- 1mo ago Changed · +37 lines 0b12438e9e3c
- 1mo ago First seen · 138 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 59c36431f66c
speq-planning is a skill published in the GitHub repository marconae/speq-skill (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,972 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
create-custom-grader
Use when converting an existing benchmark, rubric, verifier, task YAML/JSON, or domain check into SkillEvaluator BYOG/BYOT custom evaluation.
factory
Delivers a spec or decided task through the task-to-pr workflow and merges after all quality and approval gates pass. Explicit invocation grants merge authority for the supplied work.
lime-quality-workflow
A set of validation rules for the Lime project. It selects appropriate checks for changes involving the graphical interface, commands or bridges, configuration, versions, and pull-request readiness.
archetype-lint
This skill should be used when the user asks to "lint an archetype", "validate an archetype", "check archetype compliance", "check archetype rules compliance", or "run archetype rules". Applies 24 normative lint rules with ERROR/WARNING/INFO severity. Supports STRICT and PERMISSIVE modes. Reports violations only — it…
random-user-post-batch
Returns multiple randomly generated fake user profiles in a single request. Each call consumes count units of quota. Maximum 50 users per request.
random-user-get-random-user
Returns a randomly generated fake user profile.