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 wazimmerman/zimster --skill writing-plansgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wazimmerman/zimsterWrote 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/wazimmerman/zimster/writing-plans)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wazimmerman/zimster/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wazimmerman/zimster/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/wazimmerman/zimster/writing-plans"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wazimmerman/zimster/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 | $0.00026 | $0.00914 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00457 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00183 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00091 |
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 10d 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing Plans
A plan is an execution contract, not a typing transcript. Preserve semantic precision while removing procedural repetition.
Plan vertical slices
A vertical slice produces observable behavior through every needed component. Prefer “request → validation → persistence → API → UI state” over disconnected model/backend/frontend tasks.
A slice earns a boundary when it has an observable outcome, distinct risk/seam, focused RED-GREEN-REFACTOR proof, and meaningful commit boundary. Do not split setup, config, docs, or one type definition into separate task gates.
Required structure
# <Feature> Implementation Plan
## Mission and constraints
Binding requirements only, each with a stable requirement ID.
## Requirement-to-evidence matrix
For every stable requirement ID: authoritative text/source, implementation
locations, evidence references, environment or harness scope, unavailable
proof, status, and intended acceptance claims.
## Profile and rationale
Micro | Standard | High risk, six dimensions, hard triggers.
## Git and durable-state policy
Default/feature branch behavior, worktree need, commit permission/boundaries,
and deterministic Git-local durable-state triggers.
## Architecture and ownership
Files/components, authoritative state, interfaces, cancellation/cleanup.
## Verification commands
Repository-declared canonical focused, affected, integration, and full gates.
## Slice 1: <observable result>
- Scope/files and interface contracts
- Load-bearing behaviors
- Meaningful RED proof for each behavior
- Minimal implementation direction
- GREEN/regression/mutation evidence
- Risk trigger/review lenses
- Commit boundary
## Integration and completion
Complete change review including untracked files, final gates,
external/hardware/manual evidence, documentation, semantic review package,
candidate-completion gate, and honest state.
Profile rules
- Micro: all dimensions Low, one slice, no public contract/hard trigger.
- Standard: one or more Medium dimensions, no High/hard trigger.
- High risk: any High dimension or hard trigger.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 120 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A cf418d5eb0d9
writing-plans is a skill published in the GitHub repository wazimmerman/zimster (2 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 914 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
build-test
Run the project's build / typecheck / lint / test commands and emit the build.passing + tests.passing signals devloop convergence reads.
rudder
Use locally captured coding-session intent to resolve a device-local behavioral spec, generate focused tests from that spec, implement the smallest production changes through red-green TDD, and verify coverage with the repository's native tooling. Use when the user asks to run Rudder, create or regenerate tests for…
TDD 开发纪律助手
A development skill based on TDD, or test-driven development: write or update a test first, make it pass with the smallest code change, then improve the code and check for regressions.
ship
Enforces Law 1 (Research Before Executing), Law 3 (One Thing at a Time), and Law 4 (Verify Before Reporting) of the 7 Laws of AI Agent Discipline. Fix one defect through TDD and one PR, isolate unrelated dirty checkouts in an owner-locked clean worktree, and return only eligible clean checkouts to the detected default…
debugging
Investigate failures whose root cause is still unknown — narrow the search space, instrument, and test falsifiable hypotheses. Use for intermittent or environment-dependent behavior, unexplained stack traces, regressions with no known trigger, or any symptom without a confirmed cause. Ends once the root cause is…
security-audit
Security review and hardening workflow — root-cause analysis of vulnerabilities, authentication and authorization checks, least privilege, input handling, secret hygiene, and security regression tests. Use when reviewing code for security, fixing a vulnerability, hardening a feature, or handling auth, permissions…