Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add testdouble/han/plugin install han-codingWrote 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/testdouble/han/manual-test-planning)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/testdouble/han/manual-test-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdouble/han/manual-test-planning/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/testdouble/han/manual-test-planning"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdouble/han/manual-test-planning.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 | $0.00201 | $0.02556 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00080 | $0.01022 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00511 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00256 |
Grade A, and why
manual-test-planning scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Project Context
- personal config directory: !
bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/han-config-dir.sh" 2>/dev/null || echo "$HOME/.claude" - project .han/config.md: !
cat .han/config.md 2>/dev/null || echo ""
As your first action, use the Read tool on .han/config.md inside the personal config directory path above. A read
that returns no file is no personal configuration: continue silently. When that file or the project .han/config.md
probe supplies content, apply it per config-rule.md, which governs precedence
between the two files, relative-path resolution, and what to do with a file that reads but cannot be used.
Operating Principles
- Group outcomes only when the steps are identical. A test verifies a single outcome, or a group of related outcomes only when the exact same steps produce every outcome in the group. If any outcome needs a different or additional step, it gets its own test, BECAUSE a person following one step list can only check the outcomes those steps actually produce.
- Every test states its expected outcomes. A step list without an expected outcome is not a test. Each test's detail section ends with the outcome or outcomes the person should observe, so they can tell pass from fail on the spot.
- No manual tests means no document. When the supplied context contains nothing a person can test by hand, say so clearly and ask for more context instead of writing a file. Never invent or pad testable outcomes, BECAUSE a plan built on guesses sends the tester chasing outcomes the work never promised.
- Plain language only. The plan is written for the person who runs the tests by hand, who may not be technical. Short, concise sentences. No file paths, function names, code, or framework jargon anywhere in the document. Describe what the person does and sees through the product's own surfaces (screens, commands, pages, messages), not how the code works, BECAUSE the reader follows the plan without ever reading the code.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 173 lines · 201 tokens per session scan A fbb2d92980ad
manual-test-planning is a skill published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 201 tokens to every session and 2,556 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
codex-loop
Fix Elixir/Phoenix code until Codex CLI review comes back clean — bounded review, fix, verify loop before opening a PR. Use when codex is installed and you want an external cross-model critic on your changes before pushing.
codex-ab
Run an A/B codex review experiment — holistic codex review vs 3 focused dimension passes (security, ecto, liveview) on the branch diff, classify findings, report a panel-value verdict. Use when the branch is fresh, before any codex review runs.
implement
Implement a ticket or feature with proportional planning, test first behavior changes, independent review when available, and verification through the real affected surface.
code-standards
Apply a disciplined engineering workflow to any code change. Use whenever implementing a feature, fixing a bug, or refactoring — before writing code, not after. Walks orient → baseline → smallest change → test → verify → self-review, and enforces language-agnostic hard gates (don't mass-reformat, keep the linter and…
verify-multispec
A verification workflow for major releases or large code refactors. It uses four specialist teammates to review the change, question each other’s findings, and then shut down cleanly.
daa-review
Use when reviewing existing test code for DAA compliance, identifying anti-patterns, or suggesting improvements to automation test architecture.