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/mdcms-ai/mdcms/executing-plansnpx skills add mdcms-ai/mdcms --skill executing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mdcms-ai/mdcmsWhat 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 | $0.00022 | $0.00531 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
executing-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
92% identical to executing-plans — 18 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Executing Plans
Overview
Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
Announce at start: "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
Note: Tell your human partner that Superpowers works much better with access to subagents. The quality of its work will be significantly higher if run on a platform with subagent support (such as Claude Code or Codex). If subagents are available, use superpowers:subagent-driven-development instead of this skill.
The Process
Step 1: Load and Review Plan
- Read plan file
- Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
- If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
- If no concerns: Create TodoWrite and proceed
Step 2: Execute Tasks
For each task:
- Mark as in_progress
- Follow each step exactly (plan has bite-sized steps)
- Run verifications as specified
- Mark as completed
Step 3: Complete Development
After all tasks complete and verified:
- Announce: "I'm using the finishing-a-development-branch skill to complete this work."
- REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch
- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, execute choice
When to Stop and Ask for Help
STOP executing immediately when:
- Hit a blocker (missing dependency, test fails, instruction unclear)
- Plan has critical gaps preventing starting
- You don't understand an instruction
- Verification fails repeatedly
Ask for clarification rather than guessing.
When to Revisit Earlier Steps
Return to Review (Step 1) when:
- Partner updates the plan based on your feedback
- Fundamental approach needs rethinking
Don't force through blockers - stop and ask.
Remember
- Review plan critically first
- Follow plan steps exactly
- Don't skip verifications
- Reference skills when plan says to
- Stop when blocked, don't guess
- Never start implementation on main/master branch without explicit user consent
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 · 71 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A a711f83fb762
executing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository mdcms-ai/mdcms (22 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 531 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to executing-plans, differing in 18 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
wordpress-plugin-to-emdash
Port a WordPress plugin to EmDash CMS. Use this skill when asked to migrate, convert, or port a WordPress plugin, theme functionality, or custom post type to EmDash. Provides concept mapping and implementation patterns.
review
Review one pull request for real bugs, regressions, and convention violations. Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff, verify each against the code, then return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict. Read-only on GitHub; the orchestrator posts the review.
writing-emdash-docs
Write, revise, and review EmDash documentation for technical accuracy, useful structure, house style, and natural prose. Use when working on user documentation, guides, API reference pages, migration or upgrade guides, READMEs, contributor documentation, technical specifications, or release notes in the EmDash…
building-emdash-site
Build and customize EmDash CMS sites on Astro. Use when creating pages, defining collections, writing seed files, querying content, rendering Portable Text, setting up menus/taxonomies/widgets, configuring deployment, or any task involving an EmDash-powered Astro site. Assumes basic Astro knowledge but provides all…
emdash-cli
Use the EmDash CLI to manage content, schema, media, and more. Use this skill when you need to interact with a running EmDash instance from the command line — creating content, managing collections, uploading media, generating types, or scripting CMS operations.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.