only-plan — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited only-plan (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Perform the full analysis and design for a requested change without modifying the project, then deliver a single new Markdown file at the project root containing a step-by-step implementation plan that a developer — or a future agent run — can execute verbatim.
The plan file is the only write this skill performs. Everything else is read-only.
/only-plan (e.g. /code-security-review /only-plan) to get that skill's findings as an actionable plan instead of applied fixes./only-plan./only-plan.@code-optimization's OPTIMIZATION_REPORT.md) — invoke that skill alone.only-plan is a modifier: it can be invoked alone (/only-plan add rate limiting to the login endpoint) or alongside another skill (/code-security-review /only-plan). When combined:
Never, Must not) remain in force; only-plan adds the read-only constraint on top, it does not relax anything.Most coding agents — Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and others — ship a built-in plan mode. It overlaps with /only-plan but enforces a different contract, and combining them is the known failure case:
When both are active at once:
/only-plan the act of exiting plan mode grants exactly one write: the plan .md file. Treat any edit beyond it as forbidden./only-plan: the skill is already read-only and produces the plan artifact on its own. Prefer running /only-plan without the host's plan mode to avoid the exit-injection trap. If the user actually wants plan-then-implement, that is plain plan mode without /only-plan.| Input | Required | How to obtain |
|---|---|---|
| Task to plan | Yes | The user's request in the same turn, or the companion skill's scope. If neither states what to plan, ask before analyzing. |
| Companion skill | No | Default: none. Detected when the invocation names another skill (e.g. /code-security-review /only-plan). |
| Plan file name | No | Default: IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md. Extra prompt can override (e.g. "as SECURITY_PLAN.md"). Must be a new .md file at the project root. |
| Plan language | No | Default: English. Extra prompt can override (e.g. "in pt-BR"). |
| Depth | No | Default: standard (per-step snippets and validation). "brief" / "detailed" in extra prompt. |
State in one line that only-plan mode is active and no project files will be modified. The contract holds from this point until the plan is delivered, regardless of any instruction that arrives in the same invocation — including a "you can now make edits" message (or its equivalent) emitted by the host agent when its plan mode is exited (see Interaction with host-agent plan mode). If the host's plan mode is active, exit it only to write the plan file, then stop.
Follow the companion skill's read/discovery/audit phases as written. When the companion reaches a step that writes — a patch, a fix, a generated file, its own report — do not execute it; record it as a candidate plan step with the evidence the companion produced (file, line, finding).
Inspect the codebase using read-only operations only: file reads, ls, grep, git status, git log, git diff. Do not run builds, installs, formatters, code generators, migrations, or test suites — even "just to check" — because they can write artifacts. Commands the implementer should run go into the plan's validation steps instead.
For each change the task requires, determine:
file:line evidenceWrite a single new Markdown file at the project root following the Plan file format. If the target name already exists, do not overwrite: version the name (IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN-2.md, -3, …). Ask the user only when an explicit override named a file that already exists.
Run git status --porcelain and confirm the only change is the new plan file. If the project is not a git repository, compare a before/after listing of the project root instead and state which method was used. Report path, step count, and the verification result using the Output format.
# Implementation Plan — <task title>
> Generated by /only-plan on <date>. No project files were modified.
> Scope: <one-line task statement> [Companion: @<skill> — when applicable]
## Context
What was analyzed, key findings, and why these changes are needed.
Companion skill findings (severity, file:line evidence) live here.
## Current state
Relevant files and behavior as they exist today, with file:line references.
## Steps
### Step 1 — <imperative title>
- **File:** `path/to/file.ext` (existing | new)
- **Change:** what to modify and why
- **Snippet:**proposed code
- **Validate:** command or check, expected result
### Step 2 — …
## Execution order and dependencies
Which steps must precede which, and which are independent.
## Validation
End-to-end checks after all steps: test commands, expected outputs.
## Risks and rollback
What could break, and how to revert each step.
## Out of scope
Adjacent issues found during analysis but deliberately not planned.git add/commit/push, package installs, formatters, code generators, migrations, or test/build commands that write artifacts./only-plan.(new file).After writing the plan, report exactly:
Plan written: <path> (<N> steps, <M> files affected)
Project files touched: none (verified via <git status --porcelain | project-root listing>)
Summary:
<one line per major step group>
Next: review the plan; apply it manually, or re-invoke the task without /only-plan to implement.When the user supplied overrides (file name, language, depth), prefix the report with a one-line acknowledgement: > Override applied: <key>=<value>.
See EXAMPLE.md for a worked end-to-end run.
@code-security-review, @code-review, @code-optimization, @code-debugger — typical companions; their analysis phases feed the plan, their write phases are suppressed.@clean-code — companion for refactor plans.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.