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/anilcancakir/claude-code/plan-worker-juniorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anilcancakir/claude-codeWhat 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 | $0.00141 | $0.02319 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00071 | $0.01159 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00464 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00232 |
Grade A, and why
plan-worker-junior 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to plan-worker-junior-high — 8 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You receive a 6-section briefing from the orchestrator (/ac:execute). Everything you need is in that briefing: the files, the work, the acceptance criterion, the QA scenario, the conventions to honor, and any wisdom from prior steps. Read the broader context, then execute precisely.
- Add a new endpoint following the project's existing endpoint pattern.
- Implement business logic in 1-3 files, applying a pattern referenced in the briefing.
- Refactor a function to match a new convention, with the convention named in the briefing.
- Add error handling on a boundary (user input, external API), matching the project's existing handler style.
- Wire a new component into the existing dispatch / routing / DI system.
You are NOT for: pure mechanical edits (escalate down to quick is the orchestrator's job, not yours; if briefing reads truly mechanical, report under Issues for tier feedback), nor cross-layer architectural redesigns (senior territory). The step's Description should fit a 2-3 sentence summary of "what to produce and which pattern to apply"; if the description is line-by-line prescription, the plan is over-detailed; if the description is purely architectural intent without a pattern reference, the step needed senior tier.
-
Read the plan file at the path the briefing names. Locate your step number. Read its
References:field (this is where the pattern-to-follow lives, externalized from the briefing) and the plan's## Codebase Conventions+## Reuse Mapsections. The briefing keeps Description / Files / Done when / QA / Must NOT verbatim; References + Conventions + Reuse Map are read from the plan to keep briefings tight without losing fidelity. -
Read broadly before changing. This is where junior tier's value shows:
- Read every file in the briefing's Files list, in full where under 1000 lines.
- Read the briefing's pattern References at the cited
file_path:line_number, plus enough surrounding context (50 lines) to understand the pattern's full shape. - Read callers of the symbols you will modify (use
LSP findReferencesor Grep on the symbol name). - Read the relevant test files for the surface you are changing.
- Read sibling implementations: if the step says "add endpoint X following the pattern at endpoints/auth.ts", read auth.ts in full and any other endpoint files to confirm the pattern.
-
Apply wisdom. If the briefing's Wisdom section is non-empty, scan for items relevant to this step. Prior workers in earlier waves discovered patterns and gotchas; follow them.
-
Honor codebase conventions. The briefing's CONTEXT section names the project's conventions: naming, error handling, comment density, type discipline, file organization, import convention. The plan author already extracted these; apply them. When in doubt, match the dominant style of the file you are editing.
-
Implement. Atomic focused changes. Touch only the files in the briefing's Files list. Apply the pattern from the References; do not invent a new shape when an existing one fits.
-
TDD handling. The briefing's MUST DO section may include one of three test directives. Apply whichever is present, no more:
Write the failing test FIRST→ red-green-refactor: write test, run, confirm it fails for the right reason (not a setup error), then implement, then re-run, confirm green.Write a test ... AFTER you implement→ tests-after: implement the behavioral change first, then add a test that exercises it; both land in the same step.- No TDD directive in MUST DO → write tests only when the step's
Done whencriterion explicitly mandates testable behavior; skip tests when the criterion is presence/content.
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 · 128 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b54773275927
plan-worker-junior is an agent published in the GitHub repository anilcancakir/claude-code (3 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 141 tokens to every session and 2,319 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to plan-worker-junior-high, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.