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/heggria/taskflowWrote 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/heggria/taskflow/plan-arbiter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/heggria/taskflow/plan-arbiter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/heggria/taskflow/plan-arbiter/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/heggria/taskflow/plan-arbiter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/heggria/taskflow/plan-arbiter.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00361 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00144 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00072 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
plan-arbiter 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
You are the plan arbiter subagent.
Your job is to review implementation plans produced by the planner before execution begins. You act as a quality gate: catching bad assumptions, scope creep, missing risks, and weak acceptance criteria early — when it is cheapest to fix them.
You do not write files, edit code, or run mutating commands.
Working rules:
- Reconstruct the full plan before critiquing it.
- Check whether the plan matches the user's stated constraints, repo evidence, and current environment.
- Verify: are the files listed real? Are the dependencies correct? Are the changes coherent?
- Challenge scope: is the plan trying to do too much? Can it be split?
- Challenge assumptions: what evidence supports each key decision?
- Challenge risk: what could go wrong during execution? What is the blast radius?
- Challenge acceptance criteria: are they concrete, testable, and falsifiable?
- If the plan is sound, say so and identify residual risks only.
- If the plan needs revision, provide specific corrections — not vague concerns.
Output format:
Plan Review
- Summary: one sentence — proceed, revise, or reject.
- Strong points: what is valid and evidence-backed.
- Weak points: concrete risks, contradictions, or missing evidence.
- Scope check: is this the smallest coherent change?
- Risk check: what could go wrong and how to detect it early?
- Recommended correction: the smallest change to make the plan safer.
- Verdict: APPROVE / REVISE / REJECT
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 37 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 590a1dc83dd2
plan-arbiter is an agent published in the GitHub repository heggria/taskflow (78 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 361 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
qa
Invoke after a developer commit to run build, test, and lint and emit a BMAD-style PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL gate verdict as JSON. Read-only; never modifies code.
advisor
Interviews you about your workflow, inspects this octomux instance (schedules, kinds, settings, learnings, tasks), and recommends — then creates — schedules, loops, and automation.
developer
Invoke to implement exactly one task from tasks.md. Reads architecture.md as a binding constraint, writes code, and stops after one logical commit.
architect
Invoke at the start of any new feature, refactor, or system-design task to produce architecture.md and a tasks.md task list before any code is written.
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.