Install
$ agentstack add skill-abhijit-nexlytix-claude-skills-deep-plan ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Deep Plan
Delegate the hard thinking (planning, architecture, trade-off analysis) to an Opus sub-agent, then execute the plan in the main model. Optimizes for cost when the main conversation is running on a cheaper model but the task genuinely benefits from Opus-level reasoning for planning.
When this is worth using
Use when all of these hold:
- The task has real complexity (multi-step, judgment calls, non-obvious trade-offs).
- The main conversation is on Sonnet or Haiku (not Opus — if the main model is already Opus, this skill doesn't save money).
- Errors would be expensive to undo (stakeholder deliverable, production code, payroll numbers).
Do not use for: simple lookups, syntax questions, arithmetic, single-step tasks, things the main model handles fine on its own. Sub-agent overhead would cost more than it saves.
Flow
- Confirm the task is worth the overhead. If it's clearly trivial, tell the user this skill isn't worth it for this request and just answer directly. Don't auto-delegate everything.
- Extract the full task context. Pull the user's actual request, any relevant files, constraints, prior conversation context — everything the sub-agent needs to plan well. The sub-agent starts fresh, so the prompt must be self-contained.
- Invoke the Plan sub-agent with model override. Use the Agent/Task tool with:
subagent_type: "Plan"model: "opus"description: short summary of what to plan (3–5 words)prompt: full self-contained brief — goal, context, constraints, expected plan format. End with "Return a step-by-step plan with file paths, decisions, and risk flags. Do not execute."
- Receive the plan. The sub-agent returns a structured plan.
- Surface the plan to the user for review. Show the plan as-is (or lightly reformatted for readability). Ask one question: "Run this as-is, or want to tweak?" Let the user edit or approve.
- Execute the plan in the main model. Once approved, step through the plan using the main model's regular tools. Do not re-invoke the sub-agent for execution — that defeats the cost savings.
Prompt template for the Plan sub-agent
When invoking the sub-agent, use this shape:
Task: {one-sentence goal}
Context:
- {file paths, system, relevant state}
- {prior conversation points that matter}
- {user preferences or conventions already established}
Constraints:
- {what must NOT change}
- {formatting, output, tools to use}
- {things that have bitten past attempts, if known}
Required plan shape:
- Step-by-step with file paths and tool calls where relevant
- Flag architectural decisions and trade-offs explicitly
- Call out risks and what could go wrong
- Do NOT execute. Return the plan only.
Output format: numbered steps, one action per step.
Cost reminder
Sub-agent tokens are billed at the sub-agent's model rate. So if the main conversation is on Sonnet and planning is delegated to Opus:
- Planning cost = Opus rate × planning tokens (small)
- Execution cost = Sonnet rate × execution tokens (usually large)
- Net: much cheaper than running the entire task on Opus.
If the main conversation is already on Opus, this skill adds overhead without saving money — the main model can plan just as well inline. Tell the user that when they trigger it on Opus, and ask whether they want to proceed anyway (for context-isolation benefits) or skip delegation.
Pitfalls
- Delegating trivial work. If the task is simple, skip the sub-agent and answer directly. This skill should be conservative about firing.
- Under-briefing the sub-agent. It has no memory of this conversation. If you forget to include a constraint, the plan will miss it. Err toward over-including context in the prompt.
- Executing in the sub-agent. The sub-agent plans only. If you let it execute, you're paying Opus rates for the whole task — the opposite of the goal.
- Skipping user review of the plan. The user should see the plan before you execute it. Planning is the step most likely to go sideways; catching it before execution is much cheaper than catching it after.
- Re-delegating mid-execution. If a new sub-problem arises during execution, handle it in the main model unless it's genuinely another deep-plan moment. Don't death-spiral into nested sub-agents.
Example
User: /deep-plan refresh the P5 carwash deck from the new source workbook and make sure every number ties
What to do:
- Confirm this is worth delegation — yes, multi-step, stakeholder deliverable, numbers have to tie.
- Build the sub-agent prompt including: period number, deck path, source workbook path, reference to the carwash-deck-refresh skill, the user's "don't overwrite manual edits" preference, the validation-pass requirement.
- Invoke Agent with
subagent_type: "Plan",model: "opus". - Get back a 6–10 step plan (read workbook, update KPIs, update tables, rename Mid-Period → Period End, validation pass, report changes, etc.).
- Show plan to user: "Here's Opus's plan — run as-is, or adjust?"
- On approval, execute in the main (cheaper) model using the actual pptx/xlsx tools.
What this skill does not do
- Switch the main conversation's model. Only invokes sub-agents with a model override.
- Run arbitrary tools in the sub-agent. Sub-agent is planning-only.
- Apply to conversational or trivial questions — those should just get answered directly.
- Chain multiple sub-agents for the same task. One plan, one execution.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: abhijit-nexlytix
- Source: abhijit-nexlytix/claude-skills
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.