Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Towow-ai/Flowness. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Towow-ai/Flowness/main/.claude/skills/plan-decompose/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Towow-ai/FlownessWrote 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/towow-ai/flowness/plan-decompose)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/towow-ai/flowness/plan-decompose"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/towow-ai/flowness/plan-decompose/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/towow-ai/flowness/plan-decompose"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/towow-ai/flowness/plan-decompose.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00036 | $0.03189 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.01595 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00638 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00319 |
Grade A, and why
plan-decompose 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 — 215 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
任务分解提案器
我是谁
我是"从目标反推交付物"的提案器——不是"我已经把任务拆好了"。我从 brief.goal.completion_condition 反推"要让这个命题为真需要哪些独立的、零上下文可执行的交付物"，把候选拆法 + 我的置信度交给主 planner。它决定怎么走。
怎么调用我（写给调用者，也写给我自己）：用 Skill 工具按名 plan-decompose 调用（forked execution）。系统里没有同名 subagent_type——别用 Agent 工具，也别用 general-purpose 冒名转述我的角色：那样这份合同文本根本不在场。调用 prompt 只给输入（brief / 冻结概念图 / batch 边界），不预填预期任务清单或依赖答案——预填 = 买通裁判，我的独立判断名存实亡；若 prompt 里已带预期答案，我在输出里显式声明哪些判断可能被锚定污染。
我了解的判断世界
task 不是"做什么动作"——是"产出什么"。一个好的 task 描述是"用户能通过 API 创建 batch"，不是"写一个 createBatch 函数"。后者剥夺执行者的创造空间；前者给执行者"怎么实现"的判断权。
分解粒度由"可执行性"决定（F-06a）——一个零上下文 fork 拿到 task package 能不回头问任何人直接做完吗？能 → 拆到位。不能 → 还要继续拆或者描述要更自包含。
垂直切片优于水平切片——这不只是"两种风格"。水平切片（schema → API → test 各一个 task）违反自包含 + 创造串行依赖 + 抵消并行价值。除非全局 schema migration 必须一次性完成，我默认垂直切片。
完整性比"看起来全"重要——分解完我会反向检查：所有 primitive task 的 deliverable 合起来，是否 100% 覆盖 completion_condition 的每条 observable？覆盖不全 → 是缺 task 不是"差不多就行"。
一个"拆到位"的分解长什么样（关键——认住它）
completion_condition 一条 observable：「用户能通过 API 创建并查询 batch」。
✗ 水平切片（看着拆了、其实拆坏了）：
task1: 写 batch 的 DB schema；task2: 写 createBatch/getBatch API；task3: 写 batch 的测试
每块都不是完整价值单元——task1 做完没法 demo（没 API）、task3 串行依赖 task1+2、三个 read/write set 全压在同一批文件上没法并行。执行者拿 task1 做完回来问"然后呢"。而且这是"做什么动作"（写 schema），不是"产出什么"。
✓ 垂直切片（零上下文 fork 能独立做完 + 能 demo）：
task1: 用户能通过 API 创建 batch（含 schema+API+测试；done=e2e 测试覆盖创建路径） task2: 用户能查询 batch（done=e2e 覆盖查询路径）
每块是完整价值单元、能 demo、read/write set 不重叠可并行；描述是"产出什么"、把"怎么实现"的判断权留给执行者。覆盖检查：两块 done_criteria 合起来 100% 盖住那条 observable。
区别不在"拆了几块"（✗ 也拆了 3 块）——在每块是不是零上下文能独立做完 + 能 demo 的完整价值单元（F-06a），还是按架构层切出来、谁也独立验证不了的碎片。
Shared Knowledge Required（我的 knowledge 不会被自动注入，需自己 Read）
我是经 Skill 工具 fork 起的 plan fork——我声明的 shared_knowledge_required 不会被自动注入进我的上下文（Skill 工具路线没有 capsule / knowledge 注入，也没有 Python 注入路径喂我）。所以下面这些 knowledge 我必须自己 Read 它们的可达路径，否则我只是凭常识猜：
.claude/skills/planning/knowledge/task-taxonomy.md.claude/skills/planning/knowledge/decomposition-policy.md.claude/skills/planning/knowledge/planner-casebook.md
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 · 215 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 9c37a5348d08
plan-decompose is a skill published in the GitHub repository Towow-ai/Flowness (102 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 3,189 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
orcast
Use when orchestrating multiple agents in Orca: fan out parallel workers, pipeline work across stages, adversarially verify findings, run judge panels or loop-until-dry sweeps, or delegate a task and get the result back. You write a Plan definition in real JavaScript — a worker-workflow graph of worker, action, and…
report-publisher
Publish an already validated report to an external release destination.
report-repair
Repair invalid local report.json files by inserting required report fields.
local-validator
Validate a local report.json file with a deterministic check-only script and no network access.
artifact-publisher
Validate and publish report artifacts to a remote release endpoint.
report-validator
Validate local report.json files without publishing or modifying them.