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/ronaknnathani/relay/plannpx skills add ronaknnathani/relay --skill plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ronaknnathani/relayWrote 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/ronaknnathani/relay/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ronaknnathani/relay/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronaknnathani/relay/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 5.1 | $0.00068 | $0.01349 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00674 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00270 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00135 |
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 5d 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan
Given a clarified requirements artifact, produce an implementation plan concrete enough that someone
with no prior context could execute it. The bar: exact file paths and names, one committed
architecture decision, and a phased build sequence implement consumes step by step — no abstract
advice, no "add appropriate error handling". This is a peer phase: it grounds itself in the code via
explore, picks ONE approach and commits, then hands a plan to implement. It does not clarify
requirements (that's clarify, upstream) and does not write production code (that's implement,
downstream). It does not invoke either.
Process
- Ground in the codebase first. Read the clarified artifact (
clarify's requirements + success criteria), then callexplore(dispatch a sub-agent when available; otherwise inline) and consume its essential-files list andfile:linecitations as the starting set for the existing patterns, conventions, and integration points this work touches. Cite each finding aspath/to/file.ext:line— the blueprint is built on what's actually there, not what you assume. - Decide the architecture and commit. Survey the realistic approaches, then pick ONE and write the decision plus a one-paragraph rationale grounded in the patterns from step 1. Do not hedge with "Option A or B" — a plan is a decision. Record approaches you rejected in one line each only if a reader would otherwise wonder why; don't relitigate.
- Choose the test seams up front. Pick where behavior gets verified, preferring a single highest seam (one integration/end-to-end point) over many low ones. Decide what's tested and what isn't, and capture it in an explicit Testing Decisions section. New behavior gets a test; a bug fix gets a test that fails without the fix.
- Design the components. For each unit of work name the file(s), its single responsibility, and its dependencies on other units. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer; files that change together live together; follow the established structure rather than restructuring it.
- Write the Implementation Map — every concrete create/modify action with its exact path:
Create src/x.ext/Modify src/y.ext:120-150/Test tests/x_test.ext. No file is named only in prose; if it changes, it's in the map. - Sequence the build into phases. Order the work so each phase produces something verifiable,
following dependency order (data/contracts → logic → wiring/config). Emit it as the Build
Sequence checklist below — this is the executable artifact
implementworks through. - Pin the critical details. State the concrete error-handling behavior, state/data shape, and
verification command for each phase. Add an Out of Scope section listing what this plan
deliberately does not touch, so
implementdoesn't wander. - Self-review with fresh eyes. Walk every Success criterion in the clarified artifact and point to the task that satisfies it — list and fix any gap. Scan for placeholders (TBD, TODO, "handle edge cases", a test step with no assertion) and remove them. Confirm names/signatures used in a later task match what an earlier task defines. Fix inline; don't re-review.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 88 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 4d5915923831
plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository ronaknnathani/relay (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,349 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
winui-ui-testing
Automated UI testing for Windows desktop apps — generate a batch test script with the winapp ui UI Automation harness, run all tests in one pass, read results. Covers element assertions, interactions, value checking (TextBox, ComboBox, ToggleSwitch), keyboard shortcuts and typing (send-keys), hover, drag-and-drop…
pr-review
Multi-dimensional review of a PR or feature branch in microsoft/win-dev-skills. Activate on "review my PR / changes / branch", "vet before pushing", "PR review", "is this ready to merge". Fans out parallel sub-agents over skill content, the skill-vs-tool boundary (solution hierarchy), tool correctness…
winui-design
Use when designing, reviewing, or fixing WinUI 3: sample and control discovery with winapp find-ui, layout planning, control choice, Fluent Design alignment, Light/Dark/High Contrast theming, typography, spacing, brushes, accessibility, and XAML data-binding design. Load before authoring new XAML, reviewing UI PRs…
winui-dev-workflow
Build and run workflow for WinUI 3 apps with WinApp CLI 0.6+ — project creation with winapp new, project-mode winapp run, BuildAndRun.ps1 analyzer integration, crash diagnosis, and prerequisites. Use when creating, building, running, or fixing build errors in a WinUI 3 project.
winui-session-report
Analyze the current or a recent agent session (GitHub Copilot CLI or Claude Code) and generate a diagnostic report. Use only when the user explicitly asks for session feedback, agent debugging, or a review of what happened during a build session. Do not inspect session data automatically.
aspire
Build, upgrade, and operate Aspire 13.5.x C# or TypeScript application hosts with the current CLI, AppHost, ServiceDefaults, integrations, dashboard, testing, MCP, and deployment patterns for distributed apps. USE FOR: Aspire.AppHost.Sdk, Aspire.Hosting., DistributedApplication.CreateBuilder, apphost.mts…