Superpowers is a software development methodology for coding agents that guides work from clarifying requirements through design, planning, implementation, testing, and review. It is for developers who want agents to follow a structured, test-focused process using composable skills and subagents.
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 obra/superpowers --skill executing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/obra/superpowersWrote 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/obra/superpowers/executing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/obra/superpowers/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/obra/superpowers/executing-plans/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/obra/superpowers/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/obra/superpowers/executing-plans.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- 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 61 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.04904 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01962 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00981 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00490 |
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 26d 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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- executing-plans — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- executing-plans — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- executing-plans — 100% identical, 391 lines differ
- executing-plans — 100% identical, 369 lines differ
- executing-plans — 100% identical, 391 lines differ
- executing-plans — 95% identical, 8 lines differ
- executing-plans — 94% identical, 394 lines differ
- executing-plans — 94% identical, 393 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 374 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Executing Plans
Execute the plan yourself, task by task, in this session: no implementer subagent per task, no reviewer per task. One fresh-context review of the whole branch at the end.
Why inline: Subagent-driven development pays for a fresh implementer and a fresh reviewer on every task, each re-reading the codebase from zero. Inline execution pays for one context (yours) plus one reviewer at the end. What it gives up is a fresh context per task and a second pair of eyes per task. This skill keeps what those two things bought, by other means: the brief is the spec, the ledger is your memory, TDD is the per-task gate, and the final reviewer is the second pair of eyes.
Core principle: The plan already did the thinking. Execute it exactly, prove each step with a test you watched fail and then pass, and leave a record that survives your own forgetting.
Narration: between tool calls, narrate at most one short line — the ledger and the tool results carry the record.
Continuous execution: Do not pause to check in with your human partner between tasks. They chose inline execution to spend less, not to answer "should I continue?" after every task. Execute all tasks from the plan without stopping.
Rulings, not stalls. Conflicts, ambiguities, plan defects — decide them.
The spec is the binding authority, the plan is its argument, and your
judgment settles what neither answers. Record every decision in the ledger
as Ruling: <what you decided> — <why> — <what it costs if wrong>, and keep
going. Deviating from the plan without a ledgered ruling is a decision made
in secret.
Four things stop you, and only these: an irreversible or destructive operation; a security-sensitive action; a side effect outside this worktree that norms say you ask about first (a merge, a push to a shared branch, a publish); and a plan so broken that every path forward is a guess. For those, stop and ask.
When to Use
- You have a plan from superpowers:writing-plans and your human partner chose inline execution at the handoff.
- Your harness has no subagent tool (see the per-platform references in
../using-superpowers/references/). Never fabricate a dispatch; run the plan here. - Tasks are mostly independent — the same precondition as superpowers:subagent-driven-development.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 26d ago Changed · +309 lines · +13 tokens per session f38e8f2ddcf0
- 1mo ago First seen · 65 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A c4c3d8b628c5
executing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository obra/superpowers (299,875 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 4,904 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
skill-creator
Create a skill or bring an existing one up to the same standard (validate + asm eval fix loop); run evals, tune triggering. Use when authoring, fixing, or retrofitting a skill. Don't use for invoking skills, writing prose, or Python scaffolds.
skill-index-updater
Add GitHub skill repos to the ASM index: clone, audit, eval, regenerate index, rebuild catalog, open PR. Use when given GitHub URLs to onboard. Don't use for refreshing indexed repos (refresh-index), improving skills (skill-creator), or install.
hello-world
A minimal test skill that greets the user and demonstrates the ASM publish workflow.
typescript
You MUST use this when working on TypeScript-specific problems - compiler errors, tsconfig, strict typing, type inference, generics, complex type definitions, module resolution, ESM/CJS interoperability, type-checking performance, migration, or monorepo configuration. Also applies to designing or refactoring type-safe…
debugging
You MUST use this when investigating bugs, regressions, failing tests, build or integration failures, flaky behavior, performance anomalies, or other unexpected technical behavior.
parallel-agents
You MUST use this when several units of work might run concurrently through agents - independent investigations, specialist reviews, repository analyses, or plan tasks that look unrelated - covering whether they are genuinely independent, which mutable state needs isolation, how wide the wave should be, and how…