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 sefaertunc/Worclaude --skill planning-with-filesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sefaertunc/WorclaudeWrote 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/sefaertunc/worclaude/planning-with-files)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sefaertunc/worclaude/planning-with-files"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sefaertunc/worclaude/planning-with-files/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/sefaertunc/worclaude/planning-with-files"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sefaertunc/worclaude/planning-with-files.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00922 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00461 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00184 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
planning-with-files 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 9d 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Planning with Files
The IMPLEMENTATION-PROMPT Pattern
Large tasks need a written plan before code. The plan lives as a file so it can be reviewed, versioned, and referenced across sessions.
File naming: IMPLEMENTATION-PROMPT-{FEATURE}.md in the project root or docs/ directory.
Structure:
# Implementation: {Feature Name}
## Goal
One sentence. What does success look like?
## Context
What exists today. What needs to change. Links to relevant spec sections.
## Plan
### Phase 1: {Name}
- Step 1: {specific action}
- Verify: {how to confirm it worked}
- Step 2: {specific action}
- Verify: {how to confirm it worked}
### Phase 2: {Name}
...
## Edge Cases
- {case}: {how to handle}
## Out of Scope
- {thing we're explicitly NOT doing}
Breaking Large Tasks into Phases
Each phase should be:
- Independently testable
- Committable on its own
- Small enough for one session (or one focused block within a session)
Signs a phase is too big:
- More than 5-7 steps
- Touches more than 3-4 files substantially
- You can't describe the verification in one sentence
Signs a phase is too small:
- It's just one line change
- The verification is "it compiles"
- It doesn't move the feature forward meaningfully
The Plan-Review Workflow
Before implementing, send the plan through the plan-reviewer agent:
- Write the IMPLEMENTATION-PROMPT file
- Use
/review-planto trigger review - The plan-reviewer (Opus) acts as a staff engineer:
- Flags ambiguity
- Identifies missing verification steps
- Checks SPEC.md alignment
- Questions unrealistic scope
- Points out edge cases
- Address ALL feedback before proceeding
- Update the plan file with revisions
Don't skip review for non-trivial work. The 5 minutes spent reviewing saves hours of rework.
Progressive Implementation
Execute one phase at a time:
- Read the plan
- Implement the phase
- Run verification for that phase
- Commit
- Update PROGRESS.md
- Move to next phase
If a phase reveals the plan was wrong, STOP. Update the plan first. Don't improvise your way through a broken 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 128 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 8551ab5111b4
planning-with-files is a skill published in the GitHub repository sefaertunc/Worclaude (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 922 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
unicli-repair
Evidence-driven repair workflow for a broken Uni-CLI adapter. Trigger on a failed unicli envelope, a quarantined adapter, or an explicit adapter-repair request. Classifies non-source failures, edits only the reported adapter path, and uses the original command as a bounded oracle.
autonomous-run
Prepare, start, inspect, resume, or stop a finite local overnight coding run after a human has accepted a Wayfinder terminal spec; coordinates a declared Claude/Codex maker and independent checker without pushing, merging, or writing to external systems.
authentication-patterns
OAuth 2.0, JWT, SSO, MFA, NextAuth/Clerk/Supabase Auth implementation patterns.
case-interview-practice
Interactive consulting case interview practice with structured frameworks, feedback mechanisms, and progressive difficulty. Use when preparing for management consulting interviews, case competitions, or business problem-solving exercises.
finance
Financial analysis expertise for financial modeling (DCF, LBO, M&A), valuation, financial statement analysis, capital allocation, treasury management, and corporate finance decisions. Use when building financial models, analyzing statements, or making investment decisions.
i18n-localization
Internationalization and localization for global applications. Use when adding multi-language support, handling regional formats, or preparing apps for global markets.