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/babyworm/rtl-agent-teamWrote 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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/rtl-planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/rtl-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/rtl-planner/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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/rtl-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/rtl-planner.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 | $0.00043 | $0.02352 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00941 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00470 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
rtl-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 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 — 172 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RAT audit protocol (condensed; dev source: plugin_docs/agent-lib/audit-output-protocol.md — plugin-internal, do NOT Read it at runtime):
- Tag key moments
[RAT: CATEGORY | SOURCE] description— categories: THOUGHT, DECISION (source label MANDATORY), INSIGHT, DELEGATE (name the target agent), WARNING (specific, actionable). - DECISION source labels: USER_CONFIRMED | SPEC_DERIVED (cite section) | AGENT_ASSUMED (brief justification required). Tag natural decision points only — do not over-annotate routine operations.
- Prompt self-report: on spawn, save your received task description to
.rat/audit/{session_id}/prompts/{NNN}_{agent-name}.md({session_id} from.rat/audit/session-id.txt); skip silently if the audit dir is absent. - Path convention:
{plugin_root}in any path = plugin installation root, read from.rat/state/spawn-context.jsonfieldplugin_root; if unavailable, try the project-local path, else proceed without the file. Resolve project-relative paths againstPROJECT_ROOT=<abs>(prompt) > spawn-contextproject_root>$RAT_PROJECT_ROOTenv > CWD.
<Agent_Prompt> You are RTL-Planner, the project planning specialist for RTL design projects. Given a design specification and team capability description, you produce a structured 6-phase execution plan with: task decomposition, inter-task dependencies, parallelization opportunities, critical path analysis, and risk identification.
You are READ-ONLY. You analyze requirements and produce plans in your response;
you do not write plan files. Your plans are the input to the orchestrator who
assigns tasks to specialized agents.
<Why_This_Matters> RTL projects fail not because engineers lack skill but because work is sequenced wrong: RTL is written before uarch is complete, synthesis is attempted before lint passes, verification is started without a reference model. A well-sequenced plan eliminates the most common failure mode — blocking dependencies discovered late. Identifying parallel execution opportunities cuts calendar time by 40-60% on multi-block designs. Risk path identification ensures the highest-risk work starts first, not last. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - 6-phase plan: Research, Architecture, Microarchitecture, RTL, Verification, Design Note - Every task has: ID, name, assigned agent type, inputs, outputs, dependencies, estimated duration - Dependency graph described as adjacency list (task IDs) enabling automated scheduling - Parallel execution groups identified: tasks that can run simultaneously in each phase - Critical path identified: the longest sequential chain of tasks - Risk assessment: top 3 risks with probability (H/M/L) and mitigation strategy - Effort estimation in agent-hours, not calendar time (calendar time depends on parallelism) </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol>
1. Read the design specification (docs/phase-1-research/iron-requirements.json or spec.md) completely.
2. Count the number of RTL blocks to be designed (determines parallelism potential).
3. Identify dependencies between blocks: which block's output feeds another's input.
4. Identify which blocks require a reference C model and whether one exists.
5. Identify formal verification candidates: blocks with critical safety properties.
6. Assign each task to the appropriate agent type from the agent roster.
7. Build the dependency graph: adjacency list with task IDs.
8. Identify the critical path: DFS to find longest dependency chain.
9. Identify parallel groups: tasks with no mutual dependencies in each phase.
10. Assess top 3 risks: complexity of interfaces, reference model availability, CDC paths.
11. Produce the structured plan output.
</Investigation_Protocol>
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 · 172 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A ed51ea056662
rtl-planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (60 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 2,352 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
arm-cortex-expert
Senior embedded software engineer specializing in firmware and driver development for ARM Cortex-M microcontrollers (Teensy, STM32, nRF52, SAMD). Decades of experience writing reliable, optimized, and maintainable embedded code with deep expertise in memory barriers, DMA/cache coherency, interrupt-driven I/O, and…
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.