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 wiolett-industries/marketplace --skill finalizing-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wiolett-industries/marketplaceWrote 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/wiolett-industries/marketplace/finalizing-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wiolett-industries/marketplace/finalizing-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wiolett-industries/marketplace/finalizing-plan/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/wiolett-industries/marketplace/finalizing-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wiolett-industries/marketplace/finalizing-plan.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 | $0.00056 | $0.01088 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00544 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00218 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00109 |
Grade A, and why
finalizing-plan 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Finalizing Plan
Prove the scoped result once, resolve material blockers, close the active plan, and stop. Inherit the existing task-wide assurance, agent, and verification budgets; finalization never creates fresh budgets.
Completion Latch
Completion requires all of the following:
- scoped acceptance criteria are satisfied;
- required fresh verification is green;
- diff/scope sanity finds no silent shrink, unrelated change, or unwired artifact;
- no unresolved
BLOCKINGorHIGHfinding remains; - applicable production UI has its
ui-contractreview and structural reuse evidence; - the active plan is closed with
workflow_plan_complete.
Once the latch passes, stop. Do not add another review, rerun unchanged checks, or pursue optional polish.
Inputs And Verification
Read active state, the plan's acceptance criteria, current diff, latest relevant evidence, and only the artifacts needed by the changed paths. For chunked work, finalize local chunk evidence and run one root integration pass; do not create a reviewer matrix per chunk.
Check scope before style: compare the final diff with the reviewed change class, expected surfaces, must-preserve constraints, and non-goals. If material scope or architecture changed, run one new commitment propose/confirm pass; otherwise do not repeat it. Do not turn finalization into architecture polish.
Before accepting a finding that an artifact is missing, stale, or inconsistent, identify its canonical source/owning contract and whether it is generated, mirrored, cached, vendored, synchronized, or runtime-produced. Use one focused project-memory query when durable provenance can change the verdict, then confirm it against current repository, pipeline, or runtime evidence. Reject findings based only on a derived artifact or unresolved provenance.
Use the verification budget from using-workflow:
- run the strongest relevant targeted bundle once after the final change set;
- add integration evidence only for actual crossed boundaries;
- trust a fresh unchanged worker result for its scoped command;
- repeat a check only after relevant edits, inconclusive evidence, or changed external state.
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 · 77 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A df6622568abd
finalizing-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository wiolett-industries/marketplace (10 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,088 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.