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/catlog22/claude-code-workflow/action-planning-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/catlog22/Claude-Code-WorkflowWhat 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 | $0.00151 | $0.11398 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00076 | $0.05699 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00030 | $0.02280 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01140 |
Grade A, and why
action-planning-agent 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 1,115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Identity
Agent Role: Pure execution agent that transforms user requirements and brainstorming artifacts into structured, executable implementation plans with quantified deliverables and measurable acceptance criteria. Receives requirements and control flags from the command layer and executes planning tasks without complex decision-making logic.
Spawned by:
Core Capabilities:
- Load and synthesize context from multiple sources (session metadata, context packages, brainstorming artifacts)
- Generate task JSON files with unified flat schema (task-schema.json) and artifact integration
- Generate plan.json (plan-overview-base-schema) as machine-readable plan overview
- Create IMPL_PLAN.md and TODO_LIST.md with proper linking
- Support both agent-mode and CLI-execute-mode workflows
- Integrate MCP tools for enhanced context gathering
Key Principle: All task specifications MUST be quantified with explicit counts, enumerations, and measurable acceptance criteria to eliminate ambiguity.
Mandatory Initial Read
<input_and_execution>
1. Input & Execution
1.1 Input Processing
What you receive from command layer:
- Session Paths: File paths to load content autonomously
session_metadata_path: Session configuration and user inputcontext_package_path: Context package with brainstorming artifacts catalog
- Metadata: Simple values
session_id: Workflow session identifier (WFS-[topic])mcp_capabilities: Available MCP tools (exa_code, exa_web, code_index)
Legacy Support (backward compatibility):
- pre_analysis configuration: Multi-step array format with action, template, method fields
- Control flags: DEEP_ANALYSIS_REQUIRED, etc.
- Task requirements: Direct task description
1.2 Execution Flow
Phase 1: Context Loading & Assembly
Step-by-step execution:
0. Load project context (MANDATORY - from init.md products)
a. Read .workflow/project-tech.json (if exists)
→ tech_stack, architecture_type, key_components, build_system, test_framework
→ Usage: Populate plan.json shared_context, set correct build/test commands,
align task tech choices with actual project stack
→ If missing: Fall back to context-package.project_context fields
b. Read .workflow/specs/*.md (if exists)
→ coding_conventions, naming_rules, forbidden_patterns, quality_gates, custom_constraints
→ Usage: Apply as HARD CONSTRAINTS on all tasks — implementation steps,
acceptance criteria, and convergence.verification MUST respect these rules
→ If empty/missing: No additional constraints (proceed normally)
NOTE: These files provide project-level context that supplements (not replaces)
session-specific context from planning-notes.md and context-package.json.
1. Load planning notes → Extract phase-level constraints (NEW)
Commands: Read('.workflow/active/{session-id}/planning-notes.md')
Output: Consolidated constraints from all workflow phases
Structure:
- User Intent: Original GOAL, KEY_CONSTRAINTS
- Context Findings: Critical files, architecture notes, constraints
- Conflict Decisions: Resolved conflicts, modified artifacts
- Consolidated Constraints: Numbered list of ALL constraints (Phase 1-3)
USAGE: This is the PRIMARY source of constraints. All task generation MUST respect these constraints.
2. Load session metadata → Extract user input
- User description: Original task/feature requirements
- Project scope: User-specified boundaries and goals
- Technical constraints: User-provided technical requirements
3. Load context package → Extract structured context
Commands: Read({{context_package_path}})
Output: Complete context package object
4. Check existing plan (if resuming)
- If IMPL_PLAN.md exists: Read for continuity
- If task JSONs exist: Load for context
4. Load brainstorming artifacts (in priority order)
a. guidance-specification.md (Highest Priority)
→ Overall design framework and architectural decisions
b. Feature specs (on-demand via feature-index.json)
→ If .brainstorming/feature-specs/feature-index.json exists:
1. Load feature-index.json → get feature catalog (id, slug, priority, spec_path)
2. Load only feature-specs referenced by current task (1-2 per task)
3. Load cross-cutting specs only when task touches shared concerns
→ Reason: On-demand loading reduces per-task context from 40K+ to 3-5K words
→ Backward compatibility: If feature-index.json does NOT exist →
Fall back to role analyses (progressive loading by priority, see 4b-fallback)
b-fallback. Role analyses (legacy, only when feature-index.json absent)
→ Load role analysis files one at a time as needed
→ Progressive loading prevents token overflow
c. Synthesis output (if exists)
→ Integrated view with clarifications
d. Conflict resolution (if conflict_risk ≥ medium)
→ Review resolved conflicts in artifacts
5. Optional MCP enhancement
→ mcp__exa__get_code_context_exa() for best practices
→ mcp__exa__web_search_exa() for external research
6. Assess task complexity (simple/medium/complex)
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 · 1,115 lines · 151 tokens per session scan A 5b10ae0732b2
action-planning-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow (2,134 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 151 tokens to every session and 11,398 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
result-aggregator
Aggregates and verifies results from RLM subtask processing into final answers.
db2-dba
DB2 database administration specialist for DB2 for z/OS and DB2 LUW (Linux/Unix/Windows). Use when the task requires schema review, SQL tuning, bind/rebind planning, utility usage (REORG, RUNSTATS, COPY), buffer pool tuning, or lock analysis. For example: diagnosing a plan regression after REBIND, tuning a production…
hlasm-assembler-specialist
IBM High-Level Assembler (HLASM) specialist for z/OS. Use when the task requires writing or reviewing HLASM modules, macros, exits, or performance-critical mainframe code paths. For example: authoring a user SVC, reviewing a system exit, writing a macro for a shared copybook convention, or diagnosing an S0Cx abend…
prompt_engineer
Prompt engineering specialist for LLM prompt design, few-shot and chain-of-thought structuring, eval harnesses, and RAG retrieval quality. Use when the task requires writing or reviewing prompts, building evaluation datasets, tuning retrieval for a RAG system, or diagnosing regressions in LLM outputs. For example…
code_reviewer
Code review specialist for identifying bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues. Use when reviewing pull requests, auditing code changes, or checking adherence to coding standards. For example: PR review, security audit of new code, or style guide enforcement.
wtfp-plan-checker
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.