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 Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus --skill plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Snowflake-Labs/cocoplusWrote 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/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/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/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/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 | $0.00063 | $0.01653 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00661 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00331 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00165 |
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 16d 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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are executing the Plan phase (2/6) of CocoBrew. Your objective is to transform the approved specification into an executable plan.
Before proceeding, verify that .cocoplus/ exists in the current directory.
If it does not, output: "CocoPlus not initialized in this directory. Run $pod init to begin." Then stop.
Read .cocoplus/lifecycle/meta.json. Verify phases_completed contains "spec".
If not: output "The Spec phase must be completed before planning. Run $spec to capture requirements first." Then stop.
CocoSpec Pre-Flight Quality Gate
Before entering plan mode, run the CocoSpec scoring gate. Spawn a background Haiku subagent (read-only) to score spec.md and discuss.md (if it exists) against five dimensions:
| Dimension | Score 0 | Score 1 | Score 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value | No rationale | Rationale present but benefits not measurable | Clear rationale with verifiable success metrics |
| Scope | No scope definition | MVP defined but out-of-scope not stated | Both MVP and explicit out-of-scope defined |
| Acceptance | No acceptance criteria | Criteria stated but not testable | Testable criteria with clear pass/fail determination |
| Boundaries | None addressed | Partial coverage | All four (error handling, performance, compatibility, security) addressed |
| Risk | No risk assessment | Risks identified but no mitigation | Risks identified with explicit mitigation or escalation plan |
The scoring agent writes the score and per-dimension rationale to lifecycle/spec-score.md.
Gate behavior:
- Score ≥9: Gate passes. Check Quick Mode eligibility (see below).
- Score 8: Hold. Show which dimension scored below 2. Ask developer to address the gap before proceeding.
- Score ≤7: Hold. Output an Uncertainty Declaration for every sub-2 dimension — name each assumption being made rather than stated. Developer must address before planning proceeds.
Uncertainty Declaration format (for score ≤7):
UNCERTAIN: [dimension description] | ASSUMPTION: [what is being assumed]
Quick Mode check (score ≥9 only): If score ≥9 AND spec scope is ≤3 files (detectable from spec.md's Deliverables section) AND no EHRB indicators in the planned operations: offer Quick Mode — "Your specification qualifies for Quick Mode. Skip Plan phase and proceed directly to Build?" Quick Mode requires explicit developer confirmation. If accepted, record "quick_mode": true in lifecycle/meta.json and add "plan" to phases_completed with a note, then skip to Build.
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.
- 16d ago Changed 3b65a1e4b0a7
- 1mo ago First seen · 166 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A b260edbb0963
plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus (724 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,653 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
feature-requirements
Turn the ticket into requirements and CUJs, and stop with a split proposal when it is too big.
jira-release
Assemble a release from a batch of Jira issues — one release branch, pull request, preview and tracking issue per repository — and, when a person says to ship it, merge it and move the cards on. Insert into the prompt of a run started on a batch of issues.
github-operations
GitHub CLI operations for issues, PRs, milestones, and Projects v2. Covers gh commands, REST API patterns, and automation scripts. Use when managing GitHub issues, PRs, milestones, or Projects with gh.
prioritization
Prioritization frameworks — RICE, WSJF, ICE, MoSCoW, and opportunity cost scoring for backlog ranking. Use when prioritizing features, comparing initiatives, justifying roadmap decisions, or evaluating trade-offs between competing work items.
product-frameworks
Product management frameworks for business cases, market analysis, strategy, prioritization, OKRs/KPIs, personas, requirements, and user research. Use when building ROI projections, competitive analysis, RICE scoring, OKR trees, user personas, PRDs, or usability testing plans.
link-ticket-to-session
Link the current Claude Code session to a ticket (Linear, Jira, GitHub Issues, or GitHub Pull Requests) and cache its title/status in karma. Use when the user explicitly asks to link, attach, associate, or connect this session to a ticket, issue, or PR — e.g. "/link-ticket-to-session ABC-123", "link this session to…