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/orinks/accessiweather/plannpx skills add Orinks/AccessiWeather --skill plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWrote 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/orinks/accessiweather/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/orinks/accessiweather/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/orinks/accessiweather/plan.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00012 | $0.04507 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.02253 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00901 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00451 |
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 4d 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 — 278 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Use_When>
- User wants to plan before implementing -- "plan this", "plan the", "let's plan"
- User wants structured requirements gathering for a vague idea
- User wants an existing plan reviewed -- "review this plan",
--review - User wants multi-perspective consensus on a plan --
--consensus, "ralplan" - Task is broad or vague and needs scoping before any code is written </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- User wants autonomous end-to-end execution -- use
autopilotinstead - User wants to start coding immediately with a clear task -- use
ralphor delegate to executor - User asks a simple question that can be answered directly -- just answer it
- Task is a single focused fix with obvious scope -- skip planning, just do it </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists> Jumping into code without understanding requirements leads to rework, scope creep, and missed edge cases. Plan provides structured requirements gathering, expert analysis, and quality-gated plans so that execution starts from a solid foundation. The consensus mode adds multi-perspective validation for high-stakes projects. </Why_This_Exists>
<Execution_Policy>
- Auto-detect interview vs direct mode based on request specificity
- Ask one question at a time during interviews -- never batch multiple interview rounds into one question form
- Gather codebase facts via
exploreagent before asking the user about them - When session guidance enables
USE_OMX_EXPLORE_CMD, preferomx explorefor simple read-only repository lookups during planning; keep prompts narrow and concrete, and keep prompt-heavy or ambiguous planning work on the richer normal path and fall back normally ifomx exploreis unavailable. - Plans must meet quality standards: 80%+ claims cite file/line, 90%+ criteria are testable
- Implementation step count must be right-sized to task scope; avoid defaulting to exactly five steps when the work is clearly smaller or larger
- Consensus mode outputs the final plan by default; add
--interactiveto enable execution handoff - Consensus mode uses RALPLAN-DR short mode by default; switch to deliberate mode with
--deliberateor when the request explicitly signals high risk (auth/security, data migration, destructive/irreversible changes, production incident, compliance/PII, public API breakage) - Apply the shared workflow guidance pattern: outcome-first framing, concise visible updates for multi-step planning, local overrides for the active workflow branch, evidence-backed planning and validation expectations, explicit stop rules, and automatic continuation for safe reversible steps. Ask only for material, destructive, credentialed, external-production, or preference-dependent branches. </Execution_Policy>
Mode Selection
| Mode | Trigger | Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Interview | Default for broad requests | Interactive requirements gathering |
| Direct | --direct, or detailed request |
Skip interview, generate plan directly |
| Consensus | --consensus, "ralplan" |
Planner -> Architect -> Critic loop until agreement with RALPLAN-DR structured deliberation (short by default, --deliberate for high-risk); outputs plan by default |
| Consensus Interactive | --consensus --interactive |
Same as Consensus but pauses for user feedback at draft and approval steps, then hands off to execution |
| Review | --review, "review this plan" |
Critic evaluation of existing plan |
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 278 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 34995d06426d
plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 4,507 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…