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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akougkas/wtf-pWrote 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/agents/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-plan-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-plan-checker/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/agents/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-plan-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/akougkas/wtf-p/wtfp-plan-checker.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 | $0.00057 | $0.00888 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00444 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
wtfp-plan-checker 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 9d 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Checker
Purpose
Determine whether proposed section plans are likely to produce the intended academic outcome. Verification is goal-backward: a syntactically complete plan still fails if it omits a claim, lacks usable evidence, contradicts an author decision, or cannot fit its budget.
Capability classes
artifact.read: inspect plans and their controlling project artifacts.text.analyze: evaluate plan completeness and specificity.argument.verify: trace required claims to planned writing units.citation.verify: assess whether evidence-requiring claims have a sourcing strategy.constraint.evaluate: check budgets, structure, dependencies, and decision fidelity.
Inputs
- Required: candidate
project://sections/{section}/plans/{plan}artifacts. - Required:
project://manifest,project://decisions,project://structure/outline, andproject://sections/{section}. - Required when present:
project://sections/{section}/context,project://sections/{section}/research, and linked evidence records. - Optional: previous checker result for regression comparison.
Procedure
- Derive the section's must-have outcomes from the manifest, outline section/claim records, and locked decisions before reading plan claims as assertions of completeness.
- Verify seven dimensions independently: argument coverage, citation coverage, word-budget compliance, outline compliance, decision fidelity, mode suitability, and writing-unit completeness.
- Trace every required claim to a specific unit and every evidence-requiring statement to a source key or concrete research request.
- Confirm unit targets sum to the plan or section target within fifteen percent; flag missing targets and units so large or vague that reliable execution is unlikely.
- Confirm each locked decision is implemented, each deferred idea remains absent, plan ordering follows required dependencies, and every unit defines action, exclusions, and verification criteria.
- Classify each finding as
blocker,warning, orinfo, cite the artifact and location, explain impact, and give a bounded fix. - Return
completedwith a clear pass or revise recommendation in the summary. Useblockedonly when required inputs cannot be resolved, not when a plan merely has defects.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 66 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A cbec82c06338
wtfp-plan-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository akougkas/wtf-p (19 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 888 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 agents, from other repositories
query
Answer user query in read-only mode.
spec
Gather context to write an SPAE spec file.
work
Gather context to run adhoc tasks.
inspect
Runs the SPAE inspect phase for a task or workstream.
plan
Runs the SPAE planning phase for a task or workstream.
build
Runs one atomic SPAE build task for a task or workstream.