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 OdinMB/ops-workflow --skill plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OdinMB/ops-workflowWrote 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/odinmb/ops-workflow/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/odinmb/ops-workflow/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/odinmb/ops-workflow/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/odinmb/ops-workflow/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/odinmb/ops-workflow/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 | $0.00024 | $0.00814 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00326 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00081 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Create a work plan for the following task: $ARGUMENTS
Instructions
-
Research first. Read
MEMORY.md,charter.md,backlog/INDEX.md, and any relevantstate/orreferences/files to understand current state and prior work. Checkplans/completed/for related past tasks. Checkbacklog/for an existing draft plan that matches this task. -
Create or activate the plan file. If a draft plan exists in
backlog/, move it toplans/, update its date to today, and set status toactive. Refine the plan based on your research. If no draft exists, write a new file atplans/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.mdwhere the slug is a short kebab-case name derived from the task. Use today's date. Use this format:
# Task: <Descriptive Name>
- **Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **Status**: active
## Objective
What we're trying to accomplish and why. Be specific.
## Plan
1. Step one
2. Step two
3. ...
**Artifacts:** Where deliverables will be stored (e.g. `artifacts/`, `artifacts/<subfolder>/`).
**Files to create/modify:** List every file and folder expected to be created, moved, or significantly changed — including which `INDEX.md` files will need updating.
**Success criteria:**
- [ ] Criterion A
- [ ] Criterion B
Leave the sections below the plan blank — they get filled in during and after execution:
## Outcome
_Fill in when completed._
## Key Decisions
_Fill in when completed._
## Artifacts
_Fill in when completed._
## Session Log
_Fill in when completed._
-
Present and clarify. Assume the user hasn't read the research and doesn't know this corner of the project. One or two sentences each: what the situation is, what the work will produce, and what it deliberately won't cover. No numbered walkthrough of the steps and no success-criteria checklist — those stay in the plan file for the executor.
Then surface the scope decisions, trade-offs, and assumptions that genuinely need the user. Use the AskUserQuestion tool with concrete options — don't ask open-ended questions when specific choices are available, and make every option differ in something the user can judge without opening a file: what the deliverable achieves, who it's for, what it costs, what it rules out later. Group related decisions (up to 4 per question).
Decide artifact placement yourself using the Whole-File Test in
CLAUDE.mdand state where things will land in a clause — never ask which folder. Skip clarification if the task is absolutely straightforward. Update the plan file with the user's answers. Wait for approval before any work begins. -
Do NOT execute the plan. This skill only creates and proposes the plan. Execution happens via the
/executeskill after the user approves. -
Scope check. Plans in non-code repos must never include implementing code changes. This workflow produces content, research, specs, and briefs — not code. If a task involves building something in an app, the plan should cover producing the content/spec/brief that the user takes to the coding repo. If the repo's CLAUDE.md has an
## Autopilotsection, the plan for such code or product work also ends with an entry inbacklog/ideas.mdlinking the spec, so autopilot routes it to a repository and weighs it against the charter.
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 62494b239b3a
- yesterday Changed d1cb10454a66
- 1mo ago First seen · 64 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A ea2c3b1f3473
plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository OdinMB/ops-workflow (7 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 814 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
factory-db-migration
The operational discipline for running a destructive change against a production database — schema migrations, data backfills, one-shot RPCs, historical seed imports. Adjacent to factory-data-layer.md (schema design) and factory-deployment.md (where migrations execute in CI) — this skill is about the runbook around…
factory-api
API conventions for both server actions and tRPC builds. Covers the decision between them, per-mutation Zod input schemas, central router composition, pagination shape, multi-field search via Drizzle ilike + or(), mutation lifecycle hooks, conditional query enabling, stale-time defaults, error response shape and…
factory-ci
CI and pull-request review conventions. One canonical .github/workflows/ci.yml is the merge gate (typecheck, lint, test, build, claude-review); branch protection's required-checks list matches the job list 1:1; anthropics/claude-code-action@v1 reviews every PR against the factory-pitfalls.md checklist as a required…
factory-design
Design-system discipline distilled across builds. Semantic token vocabulary (name intent, not palette position), CSS variables bridged into Tailwind, dark/light as a variable swap, single- vs two-layer token systems, component primitives as token consumers, when to promote a repeated utility cluster into a primitive…
factory-frontend
Frontend conventions distilled across builds. CRUD shape (DataTable + drawer with mode union), RowActions primitive, format helpers, heading tiers, semantic color tokens, query-key naming, component-library decision criteria (Mantine vs shadcn). Read when scaffolding any UI surface that touches lists, forms, or entity…
factory-auth
Auth and authorization conventions distilled across builds with three different auth stacks (Better Auth + orgs, Supabase Auth + RLS, Clerk). Covers the provider decision matrix, the unified wrapper interface (requireAuth / requireRole / withOrgContext), procedure tier stacking, session handling, OAuth callback…