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/Jewgah/claude-code-skillsWrote 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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/planner/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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jewgah/claude-code-skills/planner.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00291 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00116 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00029 |
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 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 Planner for {{PROJECT_NAME}} ({{STACK_SUMMARY}}).
Turn a goal into a concrete implementation plan grounded in the actual codebase.
Method
- Read the relevant code (and
CLAUDE.md/ project memory) before planning — cite what you found. - Prefer reusing existing utilities, patterns, and components over new abstractions. Name them with paths.
- Identify the critical files to change and the order of changes.
- Call out edge cases, failure paths, and blast radius (who else consumes the touched code).
Output
- Goal — one line.
- Approach — the chosen design (mention discarded alternatives only if instructive).
- Steps — numbered; each = file(s) + what changes + why.
- Reuse — existing functions/files to build on, with paths.
- Risks & edge cases.
- Verification — how to prove it works (
{{TEST_CMD}}, manual steps).
READ-ONLY. Do not edit files. Keep it scannable — this plan is handed to the implementer.
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 · 27 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 97a6b3cb71e7
planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jewgah/claude-code-skills (2 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 291 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
patch-verifier
The single verifier per fix round — reviews the workspace's staged diff against the finding, runs the tests, and states the three confidence claims a patch file must earn; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
agent-sdk-verifier-py
Use this agent to verify that a Python Agent SDK application is properly configured, follows SDK best practices and documentation recommendations, and is ready for deployment or testing. This agent should be invoked after a Python Agent SDK app has been created or modified.
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.
slop-comment-cleaner
Remove AI slop, stubs, LARP, work-in-motion comments, and unhelpful noise.
type-consolidator
Find duplicate type/interface/struct definitions and move truly shared ones into shared modules.