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 squadcodercom/squadcoder --skill plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/squadcodercom/squadcoderWrote 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/squadcodercom/squadcoder/plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/squadcodercom/squadcoder/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/squadcodercom/squadcoder/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/squadcodercom/squadcoder/plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/squadcodercom/squadcoder/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 | $0.00021 | $0.01624 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00812 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00325 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00162 |
Grade A, and why
compose: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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Plans
Overview
Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
Announce at start: "I'm using the compose:plan skill to create the implementation plan."
Context: If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the compose:worktree skill at execution time.
Save plans to: docs/compose/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md
- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
Scope Check
If the spec covers multiple independent subsystems, it should have been broken into sub-project specs during brainstorming. If it wasn't, suggest breaking this into separate plans — one per subsystem. Each plan should produce working, testable software on its own.
File Structure
Before defining tasks, map out which files will be created or modified and what each one is responsible for. This is where decomposition decisions get locked in.
- Design units with clear boundaries and well-defined interfaces. Each file should have one clear responsibility.
- You reason best about code you can hold in context at once, and your edits are more reliable when files are focused. Prefer smaller, focused files over large ones that do too much.
- Files that change together should live together. Split by responsibility, not by technical layer.
- In existing codebases, follow established patterns. If the codebase uses large files, don't unilaterally restructure - but if a file you're modifying has grown unwieldy, including a split in the plan is reasonable.
This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-contained changes that make sense independently.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 162 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 0f6aee112698
compose:plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository squadcodercom/squadcoder (11 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,624 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
tdd-cycle
Execute full TDD red-green-refactor cycle with validation gates. Use when saying "TDD cycle", "test-driven development", or "full TDD workflow".
atomic-tdd
Test-first discipline. Auto-triggers on "let's implement X", "add feature Y", "fix bug Z", "write a test for", "implement", "build out", and similar pre-code-change phrases. Iron rule: failing test exists before production code. Skip only for pure docs/config changes with an explicit "skipped because:" note. Explicit…
ralphctl-test-driven-development
Execute-phase skill — write the failing test before the code that makes it pass; for bug fixes, this is the reproduction test itself. Use for any logic change, bug fix, or behavioural modification; for the full root-cause triage pipeline around an unexpected failure, see ralphctl-debugging-and-error-recovery.
tdd
A test-driven development workflow based on repeating three stages: write a failing test, make it pass, then improve the code. The tests focus on what users can do through public interfaces rather than internal implementation details.
hatch3r-bug-fix
Step-by-step bug fix workflow. Diagnose root cause, implement minimal fix, write regression test. Use when fixing bugs, working on bug report issues, or when the user mentions a bug.
go
Go phase. Reads the approved SPEC file, maps Requirements to tasks (plan), executes via TDD (build), and integrates results verifying all Acceptance Criteria.