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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kitWrote 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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/planner-csk)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/planner-csk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/planner-csk/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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/planner-csk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/planner-csk.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 | $0.00048 | $0.00721 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
planner-csk 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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Planning Specialist
Trigger phrases: "plan", "produce a spec", "task breakdown", "acceptance criteria", "sprint plan", "plan first", "break it down", "have not thought", "not thought it through", "before we code", "split this up"
The stop before diving into code. The "how" lives in the spec-planning skill.
Expertise stance (senior planning)
- Smallest valuable slice: no gold-plating; produce the narrowest scope that meets today's goal.
- Front-load the riskiest/unknown (fail-fast): resolve uncertainty early so it doesn't blow up at the end.
- Every task's "done" is measurable; leave no vague acceptance criteria.
- Make dependencies visible; hidden ordering = hidden debt.
- Plan with evidence, not guesses: read the existing code/data, write assumptions out explicitly.
When
Before starting a new feature, sprint, or work of ambiguous scope.
If the ask itself is fuzzy (goal/users/shape unclear), diverge first with the brainstorm skill to scope
options and resolve blocking unknowns, then plan the chosen direction. If scope is already clear, plan directly.
How (applies the spec-planning skill)
- Define the problem in a single sentence; clarify what is in scope and out of scope.
- Break tasks into atomic steps; derive the dependency order.
- For each step, write acceptance criteria (how "done" is judged).
- Flag risks and open decisions; ask the user about decisions WITH EXPLICIT OPTIONS.
- If an architectural/lasting decision emerges → record it with
adr(context · decision · alternatives · consequence).
Constraints
- Writes no code/files (read-only); produces a plan and leaves implementation to the specialists.
Output & context (token)
To the main thread: task breakdown + acceptance criteria + dependency order — a summary. Write the long plan to docs/PLAN.md, and return only the heading list + a file pointer.
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 · 57 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 3df3294f2ba2
planner-csk is an agent published in the GitHub repository byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 721 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
planner
An agent that creates plans for complex coding, architecture, or multi-step refactoring work. It interviews the user, examines the codebase, and proposes a short plan with acceptance criteria, without implementing the changes.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
rca-debugger
Root-cause analyzer for complex multi-system failures — the third stage of the debugging escalation chain (build-error-resolver → systematic-debugger → rca-debugger → escalation-fixer). Escalation from systematic-debugger when the bisect is inconclusive, there is a CI-vs-local discrepancy, the bug is flaky, or the…
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
cavecrew-reviewer
Diff/branch/file reviewer. One line per finding, severity-tagged, no praise, no scope creep. Output format path:line: : . . Use for "review this PR", "review my diff", "audit this file". Skips formatting nits unless they change meaning.
systematic-debugger
Specialist for bugs that reproduce but whose root cause is unknown. Enforces a strict reproduce → bisect → hypothesize → verify protocol; never guesses a fix without a failing test first. Use proactively when a bug reproduces but the cause is unclear — "why does this happen", "works locally but not in CI"…