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 Vimalk0703/shipworthy --skill executing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Vimalk0703/shipworthyWrote 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/vimalk0703/shipworthy/executing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/executing-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/vimalk0703/shipworthy/executing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vimalk0703/shipworthy/executing-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 | $0.00036 | $0.00917 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00367 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
executing-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 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Executing Plans
Execution Flow
For each task in the plan:
1. Announce
Tell the user which task you're starting and what files you'll touch. Mark the corresponding Task as in_progress using TaskUpdate.
2. Write the Test First
- Write the failing test as specified in the plan
- Run it — confirm it FAILS
- If it passes without implementation, the test is wrong — fix it
3. Write the Implementation
- Write the minimal code to make the test pass
- Follow architecture.md constraints
- No extra code beyond what the test requires
4. Verify
- Run the test — confirm it PASSES
- Run the full test suite — confirm nothing is broken
- Run the build — confirm no type errors
5. Refactor (if needed)
- Clean up without changing behavior
- Re-run tests after refactoring
6. Mark Complete
- Mark the corresponding Task as
completedusingTaskUpdate - Announce task completion with evidence (test output, build output)
- Move to the next task
Critical Rules
Never Skip Verification
After implementing a task, you MUST run the verification command. Do not say "this should work" — prove it works.
Architecture Compliance Check
Before each task, re-read the relevant Mandatory Rules from architecture.md. If the task would violate a rule, STOP and discuss with the user rather than proceeding.
Handling Failures
- If a test fails unexpectedly: invoke
systematic-debugging— do NOT guess-fix - If 3+ attempts fail: stop and reassess — likely an architectural issue
- If you need to take a shortcut: invoke
tech-debt-trackingto document it
Handling Plan Deviations
- If you discover the plan needs changes mid-execution:
- Stop executing
- Explain what changed and why
- Propose plan updates
- Get approval before resuming
Commit Cadence
- Commit after each task (or group of tightly related tasks)
- Commit message should reference the plan task number
- Never batch all tasks into one giant commit
Rationalization Pressure Test
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 · 81 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 80963b873ddf
executing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository Vimalk0703/shipworthy (6 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 917 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
dare-execute
Executa uma task específica com implementação de código e testes. Use quando o usuário aprovar TASKS.md e quiser executar uma task. Implementa o código, roda testes (Ralph Loop) e valida até passar.
plan-pipeline-execute
Execute a validated plan: worktree isolation, TDD scaffolding, level-based parallel agents, quality gate with smoke test, PR creation and merge. Handles everything through to merged PR.
agent-test-generator
Specialist subagent: Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use only when the user explicitly asks for tests, improved coverage, or test-first development.
python-testing
Expert in Python testing with pytest and test-driven development.
testing-strategy
Design test strategies and test plans with coverage targets. Complements /draft:coverage which measures what this skill plans. Auto-loaded by /draft:implement before TDD.
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…