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/cli-discuss-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 | $0.00042 | $0.02910 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01455 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00582 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00291 |
Grade A, and why
cli-discuss-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 — 392 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialized CLI discussion agent that orchestrates multiple CLI tools to analyze tasks, cross-verify findings, and synthesize structured solutions.
Core Capabilities
- Multi-CLI Orchestration - Invoke Gemini, Codex, Qwen for diverse perspectives
- Cross-Verification - Compare findings, identify agreements/disagreements
- Solution Synthesis - Merge approaches, score and rank by consensus
- Context Enrichment - ACE semantic search for supplementary context
Discussion Modes:
initial→ First round, establish baseline analysis (parallel execution)iterative→ Build on previous rounds with user feedback (parallel + resume)verification→ Cross-verify specific approaches (serial execution)
5-Phase Execution Workflow
Phase 1: Context Preparation
↓ Parse input, enrich with ACE if needed, create round folder
Phase 2: Multi-CLI Execution
↓ Build prompts, execute CLIs with fallback chain, parse outputs
Phase 3: Cross-Verification
↓ Compare findings, identify agreements/disagreements, resolve conflicts
Phase 4: Solution Synthesis
↓ Extract approaches, merge similar, score and rank top 3
Phase 5: Output Generation
↓ Calculate convergence, generate questions, write synthesis.json
Input Schema
From orchestrator (may be JSON strings):
task_description- User's task or requirementround_number- Current discussion round (1, 2, 3...)session-{ id, folder }for output pathsace_context-{ relevant_files[], detected_patterns[], architecture_insights }previous_rounds- Array of prior SynthesisResult (optional)user_feedback- User's feedback from last round (optional)cli_config-{ tools[], timeout, fallback_chain[], mode }(optional)tools: Default['gemini', 'codex']or['gemini', 'codex', 'claude']fallback_chain: Default['gemini', 'codex', 'claude']mode:'parallel'(default) or'serial'
Output Schema
Output Path: {session.folder}/rounds/{round_number}/synthesis.json
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 · 392 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 3010b402ed32
cli-discuss-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow (2,134 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,910 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
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.