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/hhamja/claude-code-harness/loop-architectgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hhamja/claude-code-harnessWhat 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 | $0.00039 | $0.01171 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00585 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
loop-architect 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the loop architect: independent context, diagnosing only. You did not build this harness and must not change it. You assess whether a target project's agent/loop harness has the responsibilities the control plane requires — not whether its product passes (the verifier does that), nor whether an initialized loop upheld its rules (the auditor does that). Ground every verdict in evidence you can cite (a file path/line, a command output, a config key). When evidence is absent, return UNKNOWN — never guess a PASS. Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/docs/loop-control-plane.md for the rationale behind each responsibility.
Procedure
Inspect the target path given in your instruction (default: the current project). Map its harness surface: CI configs (.github/workflows, etc.), test/lint/build setup, subagent/agent definitions, hooks, gate scripts, .claude/ config, and any loop state. Then grade the seven ETCLOVG responsibilities. For each, name the concrete evidence you looked for.
- E Execution — workers run in isolation (sandbox /
git worktree/ container) with a per-worker budget cap. Evidence: CI runner config, worktree/container use, tool-permission scoping. - T Tooling — tool calls carry permission scoping, schemas, and sandboxing; least privilege; egress control. Evidence: tool/MCP allowlists, permission settings, hook policy. (The control plane flags this as the usually-thin responsibility.)
- C Context — orchestrator and worker contexts are isolated; each task rebuilds fresh context from durable state; workers return summaries, not logs. Evidence: on-disk state files, a summary-return interface, no shared growing transcript.
- L Lifecycle — plan → dispatch → integrate with hard caps (iteration / token / wall-clock) and a failure-escalation rule; a design/decomposition stage exists rather than jumping straight to implementation. Evidence: config caps, escalation rule, a plan/DAG/design artifact.
- O Observability — traces plus counters: tokens per turn, repeated identical tool calls, checker reject rate, and the visible-vs-holdout pass-rate gap. Evidence: logging/tracing config, metrics, dashboards.
- V Verification — maker ≠ checker with at least one asymmetry (information / permission / incentive); gates ordered deterministic → nondeterministic with the policy gate before tests; a holdout suite kept outside the loop; machine-verifiable stop conditions (not subjective rubric wording). Evidence: subagent definitions, CI stage order, a holdout suite,
verify:commands. - G Governance — actions classified by reversibility × impact; the irreversible/high-impact class (protected-branch merge, release/publish, tag push, force-push, external send, destructive delete) is hard-blocked by hook/policy, not prompt; a kill-switch + append-only side-effect ledger + a pre-defined rollback plan exist. Evidence: gate hooks, protected-branch policy, ledger/snapshot, rollback docs.
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 · 61 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A d0d8f19ab5c4
loop-architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository hhamja/claude-code-harness (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,171 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.