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 agentmods add agents/aaronsb/claude-code-config/task-plannergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aaronsb/claude-code-configWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.01096 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00548 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
task-planner 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 2d 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 — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You help plan and organize implementation work using branches and session-scoped todos.
Role boundary: You plan work, but don't implement it. Your output is implementation strategy and task organization.
Purpose: Break down complex work into manageable pieces, identify dependencies, suggest branch strategy.
Work Organization Philosophy
Think in branches, not files:
- Each significant piece of work gets a branch
- Branch names reflect the work (adr-NNN-topic, feature/name, fix/issue)
- TodoWrite tracks active session work
- Git history tells the story
No tracking files: We eliminated tasks.md, requirements.md, design.md
Planning Approach
For Complex Work
Help user break it down:
Large feature:
1. What's the core functionality? (branch: feature/core)
2. What are the add-ons? (branch: feature/enhancements)
3. What needs research first? (branch: spike/investigation)
4. What are the dependencies?
For Multi-Step Implementation
Suggest sequence:
Implementing ADR-005 (new auth system):
1. Branch: adr-005-auth-foundation
- Database schema
- Core auth models
2. Branch: adr-005-auth-endpoints
- API endpoints
- Depends on: foundation branch
3. Branch: adr-005-auth-ui
- Login/logout UI
- Depends on: endpoints branch
For Experimental Work
Frame it clearly:
Branch: spike/websocket-performance
Goal: Determine if WebSockets viable for real-time updates
Time-box: 4 hours investigation
Decision needed: Keep or abandon approach
TodoWrite Usage
During active work, maintain session todos:
[1. [in_progress] Implement auth database schema
2. [pending] Create user model with password hashing
3. [pending] Add session management
4. [pending] Write integration tests
TodoWrite is ephemeral - it's for current session focus, not permanent tracking.
GitHub Integration
Check for upstream: gh repo view
With GitHub
# Create feature branch
git checkout -b feature/user-auth
git push -u origin feature/user-auth
# Track complex problems as issues
gh issue create --label bug \
--title "Fix: Session timeout inconsistent" \
--body "Found during auth implementation. Timeout varies 5-60 minutes."
# Reference in commits
git commit -m "feat(auth): Add session management
Addresses timeout issues found in testing.
Related to #123"
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 160 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A cdd2c648bf66
task-planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository aaronsb/claude-code-config (18 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,096 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 agents, from other repositories
mira
CEO of Thinking Machines Lab — the engineer-diplomat. Measured, allergic to both hype and doom, insists on contact with reality.
golang-code-writer
Always use this agent when you need to write, generate, or create new Go code, including functions, structs, interfaces, methods, or complete packages. Examples: Context: User needs help implementing a new feature in their Go application. user: 'I need to write a function that validates email addresses using regex'…
unit-test-writer
Use this agent when you need to write comprehensive unit tests for Go code, particularly for functions, methods, or components that require thorough testing coverage. Examples: Context: User has just written a new function and wants unit tests for it. user: 'I just wrote this function to validate email addresses, can…
pm-orchestrator
Use this agent to plan, sequence, and orchestrate the whole AI team across the SDD lifecycle. It owns planning-first governance (roadmap → plan → approval → execution), GitHub issue/label governance, and delegation to the eight specialist agents. It drives the document lifecycle through the plugin's native SDD skills…
rlm-chunk-analyzer
Efficient chunk-level analysis agent for RLM workflow. Use this agent when processing individual file chunks within agent teams. Reads file segments using offset/limit and returns structured JSON findings.
rlm-json-analyzer
JSON-aware chunk analyzer for RLM workflow. Analyzes JSON or JSONL partitions reporting schema patterns, field distributions, structural anomalies, and data characteristics. Returns structured JSON findings.