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 WenyuChiou/agent-collab-skills --skill agent-plan-act-reflectgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/WenyuChiou/agent-collab-skillsWrote 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/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-plan-act-reflect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-plan-act-reflect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-plan-act-reflect/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/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-plan-act-reflect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-plan-act-reflect.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 119 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00037 | $0.01054 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00527 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
agent-plan-act-reflect 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 6d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
agent-plan-act-reflect
Run a single-agent correction loop under the public policy/checkpoint contract. This differs from agent-debate: plan-act-reflect revises one candidate against evidence; debate compares genuinely consequential alternatives.
Use this skill for
- A task with a runnable or otherwise deterministic acceptance contract.
- A candidate likely to need more than one evidence-producing cycle.
- A bounded optimization, refactor, or draft correction.
Do not use it for open-ended ideation, an unbounded “until perfect” request, or semantic acceptance that belongs to a human.
Preconditions
Require:
- one concrete goal
- acceptance criteria
- a readable policy_ref
- a valid checkpoint_ref
- an identified critique source
The policy is the only source for cycle, retry, context, and child limits. This skill does not define fallback numeric limits.
If agent-collab-harness is unavailable, perform at most the currently authorized single action and return to the human. Do not emulate an autonomous loop with copied limits.
Cycle
- Validate the policy and checkpoint.
- Evaluate policy before any delegated-executor or reviewer spawn.
- Plan the smallest action that could add acceptance evidence.
- Act within the declared scope.
- Run the critique source.
- Add evidence references and observed metrics to the checkpoint.
- Classify progress:
- acceptance satisfied: stop with PASS.
- same failure: increment same_failure_retries.
- no new artifact, test, source, decision, or blocker: increment no_evidence_cycles.
- new evidence: reset the relevant no-progress counter.
- Run
agent-collab policy evaluateafter the cycle. - Obey PolicyDecision:
- continue: revise the plan using the new evidence.
- checkpoint: save resumable state. For v2 scope=slice with auto_continue,
use
agent-collab checkpoint advanceand continue the same authorized goal. No human override is needed for an ordinary eligible slice transition. For a v2 action checkpoint requiring context compaction, preserve evidence and authorization in a smaller linked packet, record measured active sizes, then re-evaluate before execution. Maintenance is not a human approval gate. - stop: obey its scope. An action stop prohibits repeating that action; the primary-agent may diagnose read-only or prepare an evidence-backed correction. A goal stop preserves the hard limit or human gate.
- v1 decisions retain their original checkpoint/stop semantics until explicit migration; do not silently reinterpret an old record.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +19 lines 9691cf92a405
- 7d ago Changed · -118 lines · -34 tokens per session 13c1528d51fe
- 11d ago First seen · 224 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 5e2081284eb2
agent-plan-act-reflect is a skill published in the GitHub repository WenyuChiou/agent-collab-skills (26 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,054 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
opencode
Delegate a coding task to OpenCode CLI and supervise the result via git diff. Trigger: /opencode . Claude orchestrates, OpenCode codes. Also handles /opencodeon, /opencodeoff, /opencodestatus, /opencode-report, /opencode-model-pick, /opencode-model-clear.
exploratory-data-analysis
Perform bounded, local exploratory analysis of explicitly supported scientific files. Use for redacted CSV/TSV/JSON profiles; optional NumPy, HDF5, FASTA/FASTQ, and basic image metadata inspection; missingness/leakage audits; outlier and transformation sensitivity; and rigorous EDA report scaffolds. Other domain…
google-ads-audit
Google Ads account audit and business context setup. Use for account-health audits and business-context setup. Trigger on "audit my ads", "ads audit", "set up my ads", "onboard", "account overview", "how's my account", "ads health check", "what should I fix in my ads", or when the user is new to NotFair and hasn't run…
data-charts-tako
Search and visualize the world's data - get charts, insights, and embeddable knowledge cards for finance, economics, demographics, sports, and more.
autotask-creator
Rules for automation CRUD from the group-chat commander. The commander does not call mutation tools and does not edit cloud/autotasks files directly. It emits one or more top-level ... containers in its final text; the bus parses and applies them after the turn.
webhook-management
Configure and validate CCAM webhook targets across supported chat, incident, automation, and generic providers. Use when listing provider requirements, creating or updating a target, scoping it to alert rules, sending a test notification, reviewing delivery history, or deleting a target.