AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Ultra Plan Mode

skill-joaquinruz-ultra-plan-mode-ultra-plan-mode · by JoaquinRuz

>-

— No reviews yet
0 installs
32 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-joaquinruz-ultra-plan-mode-ultra-plan-mode

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-joaquinruz-ultra-plan-mode-ultra-plan-mode)

Reliability & compatibility

✓ Security review passed
0 installs to date
— no reviews yet
● 2mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

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 →
Are you the author of Ultra Plan Mode? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

UltraPlanMode — human-in-the-loop decision by HTML

When there is a lot to review (N items, each with context) and you want a human to decide without reading a wall of text: hand them a single self-contained HTML file where they scan cards, mark each in two clicks, and hand back their selection. It closes the loop — their filtering trains the agent's criteria for the next pass. Atomic: one tool = one clickable decision HTML.

When to use it

  • Any review / approval / filtering / triage flow over complex or long items:

comms threads, signals/discrepancies, candidates, decisions, queue items, recommendations.

  • Auditing a project or area → use the "master questions" preset (below).
  • If it's short (1–3 items) → you don't need this; just answer inline.

Procedure

  1. Digest the items (never raw): per item → a short title/ID · 1–2 lines of

"what it is / what you read" · the key datum (amount, decision, who, date) · a deep link ↗ to the source.

  1. Generate the self-contained HTML (no deps/CDN → opens offline) from a **data dict

via a small script** (see examples/generate.py), not by hand, so it scales to N cards. Or edit the REPORT object in template.html directly for a handful of items.

  1. Per card: radios ✅ keep / ⚠️ review / ❌ drop + a free-text note for corrections.

Optionally pre-load a preset verdict per card; the reviewer confirms or overrides.

  1. "Copy selection" button: collects id — mark — note for every touched card into a

visible ` + navigator.clipboard`. The reviewer pastes it back.

  1. Save the .html where the reviewer can open it (a reports folder, or ~/Downloads/).
  2. Validate before delivering: balanced tags · zero href="#" (all deep links

resolved) · extract the ` and node --check` it.

  1. Close the loop: when they paste their selection back → apply the corrections to the

data/criteria; if the flow repeats, feed what you learned into the next run.

REPORT schema (for the generator / template)

const REPORT = {
  title, subtitle /* HTML */,
  meta: { date: "YYYY-MM-DD", generator: "ultra-plan-mode", target: "…" },
  readonly: true,
  legend: [{ c: "keep|review|drop", t: "label" }],
  sections: [{
    title,
    items: [{
      id,               // short stable id (printed in the export)
      title,            // card heading
      desc,             // 1–2 digested lines
      why,              // optional: why you lean a way (the key datum)
      link,             // optional deep link (http(s):// or file://)
      preset            // optional: "keep" | "review" | "drop"
    }]
  }]
};

"Master questions" preset (audit a project/area) — READ-ONLY

For each project/area, answer these five; the recommendations that come out become the clickable cards:

  1. What's here? — map the structure.
  2. Live or legacy? — file count + most-recent mtime per folder → active / dormant / legacy.
  3. Curated or orphan? — is there a README / guide / owner? curated vs draft vs no guidance.
  4. Where can an agent go wrong? — stale copies of canonical files, mis-named folders,

PII, deprecated paths, missing guidance.

  1. What to improve / merge / archive? — concrete recommendations, each with a severity.

Guardrails

  • Self-contained (zero CDN) · deep links resolved (no link → can't be audited) ·

digested data, not raw · clipboard with try/catch + `` fallback.

  • In audits: READ-ONLY — propose, don't execute. Any destructive reorg (move/delete/

rename) needs the owner's explicit approval.

  • Rule #1: name PII as a risk, never copy it into the report.

Output

An .html to open + the return contract: the reviewer pastes back id: ✅ keep / ⚠️ review / ❌ drop — note. That is the training signal for the agent's criteria.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.