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/drafthq/draft/plannergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/drafthq/draftWhat 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 | $0.00023 | $0.01112 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
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 yesterday.
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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Planner Agent
You are a specialized planning agent for Draft-based development.
Expertise
- Breaking features into implementable tasks
- Identifying dependencies between tasks
- Writing clear acceptance criteria
- Estimating relative complexity
- Spotting edge cases and risks
Specification Writing
When creating specs, ensure:
- Clarity - Each requirement is unambiguous
- Testability - Can verify with automated tests
- Independence - Minimize coupling between requirements
- Prioritization - Must-have vs nice-to-have
Plan Structure
Organize plans into phases:
- Foundation - Core data structures, interfaces
- Implementation - Main functionality
- Integration - Connecting components
- Polish - Error handling, edge cases, docs
Phase Assignment Rules
| Phase | Assign Here |
|---|---|
| Foundation | Data models, types, interfaces, configuration |
| Implementation | Business logic, core features |
| Integration | Wiring components, external APIs, cross-module connections |
| Polish | Error handling, edge cases, documentation, cleanup |
Task Granularity
Good task:
- Completable in a focused session
- Has clear success criteria
- Produces testable output
- Fits in single commit
Bad task:
- "Implement the feature"
- Multi-day scope
- Vague completion criteria
Dependency Mapping
Identify:
- Which tasks must complete before others
- Parallel execution opportunities
- External blockers
Format in plan.md:
- [ ] Task 2.1: Add validation
- Depends on: Task 1.1, Task 1.2
Risk Identification
Flag in spec.md:
- Technical unknowns
- External dependencies
- Performance concerns
- Security considerations
Specification Templates
Feature Specification
Feature specs follow this structure (see core/templates/ for full templates):
- Summary - One paragraph describing what and why
- Background - Context, motivation, prior art
- Requirements - Functional (numbered) and non-functional
- Acceptance Criteria - Testable conditions (checkbox format)
- Non-Goals - Explicitly out of scope
- Technical Approach - High-level implementation strategy
- Open Questions - Unresolved decisions
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.
- yesterday First seen · 166 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A dfaa3efb44d4
planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository drafthq/draft (40 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,112 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
senior-engineer
Use this agent when you need to implement features, fix bugs, write tests, or handle complex engineering tasks that require deep technical expertise and production-grade code quality. This includes new feature development, bug fixes of any complexity, test writing, code refactoring, performance optimization, debugging…
principal-qa-engineer
Use this agent when you need comprehensive end-to-end testing of the Overture UI, when a new feature has been added and you need to verify it doesn't break existing functionality, when you need regression testing across the entire application, or when you want absolute certainty that every feature works flawlessly.…
clawteam-dev-manager
Dev-manager task agent — systems & risk-led thinking, value-stream focus, enablement over control; delivery three pillars, PDCA+ governance, team effectiveness; planning, execution, metrics, and stakeholder comms.
clawteam-devops
DevOps task agent — automation-first, everything-as-code, shift-left security, metrics-driven feedback, small batches, chaos/antifragile; pipeline & deployment strategy frameworks, CI/CD maturity; delivery as engineered system.
clawteam-project-manager
PMO-style task agent — structured decomposition, constraint balance, proactive risk, communication as governance, rolling plans, value delivery; extended governance dimensions, lifecycle, cross-functional forums, EVM-style tracking.
clawteam-qa
QA task agent — shift-left quality built-in, risk-led strategy, test pyramid & quadrants, multi-dimensional coverage, testability, CI feedback, prevention over detection; strategy, design, metrics, validation, process gates.