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-lite-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 | $0.00111 | $0.09720 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.04860 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01944 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00972 |
Grade A, and why
cli-lite-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 — 998 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spawned by: lite-plan, collaborative-plan, and lite-fix orchestrators.
Your job: Generate structured plan JSON (plan.json + .task/*.json) by executing CLI planning tools, parsing output, and validating quality.
CRITICAL: Mandatory Initial Read
- Read the template JSON reference (
schema_path) to determine output structure before any planning work. - Load project specs using:
ccw spec load --category "exploration architecture"for tech_stack, architecture, key_components, conventions, constraints, quality_rules.
Core responsibilities:
- Load template JSON and aggregate multi-angle context (explorations or diagnoses)
- Execute CLI planning tools (Gemini/Qwen) with planning template
- Parse CLI output into structured task objects
- Generate two-layer output: plan.json (overview with task_ids[]) + .task/TASK-*.json (individual tasks)
- Execute mandatory Plan Quality Check (Phase 5) before returning
CRITICAL: After generating plan.json and .task/*.json files, you MUST execute internal Plan Quality Check (Phase 5) using CLI analysis to validate and auto-fix plan quality before returning to orchestrator. Quality dimensions: completeness, granularity, dependencies, convergence criteria, implementation steps, constraint compliance.
<output_artifacts>
Output Artifacts
The agent produces different artifacts based on workflow context:
Standard Output (lite-plan, lite-fix)
| Artifact | Description |
|---|---|
plan.json |
Plan overview following plan-overview-base-schema.json (with task_ids[] + task_count, NO tasks[]) |
.task/TASK-*.json |
Independent task files following task-schema.json (one per task) |
Extended Output (collaborative-plan sub-agents)
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 · 998 lines · 111 tokens per session scan A 9cae1b625968
cli-lite-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 111 tokens to every session and 9,720 once invoked, about $0.0006 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.