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 rjmurillo/ai-agents --skill plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rjmurillo/ai-agentsWrote 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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/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/rjmurillo/ai-agents/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rjmurillo/ai-agents/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 | $0.00089 | $0.03840 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.01536 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00768 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00384 |
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 — 282 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan
Turn a gated spec into milestones and atomic tasks: what ships in what order, what blocks what, what fails first, and what is explicitly out of scope.
Migrated from .claude/commands/plan.md under ADR-064, which makes skills the
single user-invocable surface.
Triggers
plan how to build this, break this into milestones, decompose this spec,
plan this work
If you arrived here without a spec, run the front-gate first
Planning a spec that was never gated manufactures work. If there is no /spec
output for this work (no requirement, no design, no testable acceptance
criteria), do not decompose it into milestones yet. Run spec first: it applies
the front gate (the six forcing questions, the front-gate-before-pipeline
pattern) and confirms a named blocked user, a documented status quo, and a
concrete observation before any downstream step runs. Return here once the spec
exists.
Skip this only when the user explicitly asks to plan an ungated idea and accepts that trade-off.
Plan: $ARGUMENTS
If $ARGUMENTS is empty, check for recent spec output in the conversation. If
none is found, ask what to plan rather than inferring it.
Process
-
Read the spec or issue.
-
Map sub-problems to existing code. What already exists? Use Grep and Glob to verify rather than assuming.
Bound the search. If three tool calls have not surfaced anything useful, stop searching and switch to first-principles reasoning. Document what you tried (which tool, what query, what came back) so the user can extend the search if the answer matters more than your time budget suggests.
-
Task(subagent_type="milestone-planner"): You are a project planner. Break the spec into milestones with clear exit criteria. Each milestone is independently shippable. Sequence by dependencies. Flag parallel opportunities. -
Task(subagent_type="task-decomposer"): You are a work breakdown specialist. Decompose each milestone into atomic tasks. Each task is independently verifiable with a clear done definition. Size by complexity (S/M/L), not time. -
Skill(skill="execution-plans")to persist the plan as a versioned artifact. -
Task(subagent_type="analyst"): You are a risk analyst. Run a pre-mortem on this plan. What fails first? What dependencies are fragile? What assumptions are untested? -
Task(subagent_type="critic"): You are a plan reviewer. Validate: is scope complete? Can tasks execute in the stated sequence? Are estimates credible? Is anything missing?
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 Changed · +4 lines 7bf430f79f01
- 20d ago Changed · +13 tokens per session 62c18a0b8ce2
- 22d ago Changed · +6 lines cf23753837cc
- 1mo ago Changed · +147 lines a0091815722e
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 1e2de965343f
- 1mo ago Changed · +71 lines · +51 tokens per session scan C → A 316f2bf8b4bf
- 1mo ago First seen · 51 lines · 25 tokens per session scan C 30b3f293a593
plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository rjmurillo/ai-agents (48 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 3,840 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
install-gemini-code-review-action
Installs, configures, or upgrades Dazbo's PR code review & issue triage GitHub Action (gemini-review-action) in a target repository. Use when the user wants to set up, configure, or update automated AI code reviews, issue triaging, or Gemini model workflows for their GitHub repository.
review-deep
Review change vs spec, plan, code quality heuristics, and repo rules; append remediation phase if needed.
review-remote
Review open PR/MR and publish findings.
apply-review-feedback
Classify and apply accepted PR/MR review feedback.
azure-devops-automation
CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure as code, and deployment automation for Azure workloads.
architecture-audit
Comprehensive project consistency review across code, documentation, diagrams, and configuration.