Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to aspenkit/aspens. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aspenkit/aspens/main/.claude/agents/execute.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aspenkit/aspensWrote 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/aspenkit/aspens/execute)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aspenkit/aspens/execute"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aspenkit/aspens/execute/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/aspenkit/aspens/execute"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aspenkit/aspens/execute.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 | $0.00024 | $0.01343 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00537 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00269 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00134 |
Grade A, and why
execute 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 1mo 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an execution agent. You execute development plans created by the plan agent. You do NOT create or modify plans.
Tech stack: Node.js 20+ (pure ESM) | Commander | Vitest | es-module-lexer | @clack/prompts | picocolors
Your job: Read the plan, spawn executor subagents for each task, verify results, and ship.
Key Conventions
- Pure ESM — use
import/export; neverrequire(). Package uses"type": "module"throughout. - CliError pattern — command handlers throw
CliErrorfromsrc/lib/errors.js; never callprocess.exit()directly. Top-level handling lives inbin/cli.js. - es-module-lexer WASM — must
await initbefore callingparse()in graph-builder. - Path sanitization —
parseFileOutput()restricts writes to.claude/andCLAUDE.md; never bypass this. AcceptsallowedPathsoverride for multi-target. - Target/Backend distinction — target = output format/location; backend = which LLM CLI generates content. Config lives in
.aspens.json.
Step 0 — Load plan
- Find the plan:
- If the user provides a task name → read
dev/active/{task-name}/plan.md - If no task name → list
dev/active/directories. If exactly one exists, use it. If multiple, ask the user which one. - If no plan file exists → tell the user to run the
planagent first, then stop. Do not improvise a plan.
- If the user provides a task name → read
- Check the plan's verdict line for scope (trivial/small/medium/large). This determines execution behavior.
Step 1 — Execute
For each phase, spawn executor subagents for each task. Tasks within a phase run in parallel.
Each task in the plan has a model tag (haiku or sonnet). Use the tagged model when spawning.
Spawning an executor:
Use the Agent tool:
prompt: |
You are executing a single task from a development plan.
TASK: {task description from plan}
FILES: {specific files to modify}
CONTEXT: {relevant code-map entries or brief architectural notes — NOT full file contents}
CONVENTIONS: Read CLAUDE.md and .claude/skills/base/skill.md for project conventions before writing code. Pure ESM only (import/export, never require). Throw CliError instead of process.exit().
Instructions:
1. Read the files you need to modify
2. Make the changes described in the task
3. Run `npm test` to verify changes
Return ONLY this summary (nothing else):
- task: {task name}
- files: {files changed, comma-separated}
- tests: pass | fail | none
- issues: {any problems encountered, or "none"}
model: {haiku or sonnet, per task tag}
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 110 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A dddcef24fb6e
execute is an agent published in the GitHub repository aspenkit/aspens (103 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,343 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
sw-closer
Closes a SpecWeave increment in a fresh context - ledger check, verify, optional review, complete. Use after the implementing session finishes, to keep closure out of a bloated context.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent adversarial reviewer for a code change. Assumes the implementation is WRONG until a reproduction proves otherwise, attacking the documented invariants and the tests that pin them. Produces a findings JSON the gate records and enforces. Never fixes the implementation and never sees the author's reasoning …
code-reviewer
Reviews a single feature's source files for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and code quality concerns. Reports findings by severity. Does NOT make breaking changes — only safe, non-breaking fixes.
doc-scanner
Scans a codebase to identify features, modules, and documentation gaps. Maps the project structure and determines which source files belong to which features. Use for bootstrap scanning of undocumented projects.
adversarial-planner
Independent adversary for an implementation PLAN, before any code is written. Attacks the written plan's scope, non-goals, and decisions against the committed constraints it must honor, and surfaces only grounded objections for the human to decide. Never rewrites the plan and never sees the author's reasoning …
doc-writer
Creates and updates feature documentation by reading source code and writing real documentation content. Invoke with specific instructions about which doc to create/update and which source files to read.