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 stefaniuk/loadout --skill writing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefaniuk/loadoutWrote 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/stefaniuk/loadout/writing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/writing-plans/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/stefaniuk/loadout/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/writing-plans.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 | $0.01691 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00846 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00338 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00169 |
Grade A, and why
writing-plans 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to writing-plans — 10 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Workflow Mode Guard
Use this skill only when the active local workflow mode is superpowers.
Before proceeding:
- Run
./scripts/hooks/workflow-mode.sh status. - If the active mode is
speckit, stop and tell the user to switch withmake workflow-use mode=superpowersor continue with the Spec Kit lifecycle instead. - Do not mix Superpowers workflow skills with
speckit-*commands in the same session or worktree.
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 writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
Context: If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the superpowers:using-git-worktrees skill at execution time.
Save plans to: docs/superpowers/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.
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 · 182 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A cc256b9d92ff
writing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,691 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to writing-plans, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
artifact-conventions
Defines preservation, format, and section rules for SDD specification artifacts (spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md, checklists). Use when editing feature-artifact files under specs/ / to prevent accidental corruption of cross-referenced IDs, priorities, and gating state.
plan-authoring
Reference material for writing implementation plans (technical context, architecture decisions, data models, API contracts, project-instructions alignment). Loaded on demand by plan-feature; not directly invokable.
task-generation
Reference material with the canonical task-format grammar and decomposition rules for plan-to-tasks expansion. Loaded on demand by generate-tasks; not directly invokable.
adr-authoring
Defines the canonical MADR format, lifecycle rules, numbering policy, and SAD catalog contract for standalone ADRs under specs/adrs/.
implementation-standards
Reference material with coding standards (defensive coding, error handling, testing patterns). Loaded on demand by the Developer sub-agent (.github/agents/developer.md); not directly invokable.
spec-authoring
Reference material for writing product, technical, and operational specifications (work-item priorities, requirement families, success criteria). Loaded on demand by specify-feature; not directly invokable.