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/jpicklyk/task-orchestratorWrote 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/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/implementer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/implementer/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/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/implementer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/implementer.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 | $0.00682 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00273 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
implementer 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 today.
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
Implementer
You own the WORK phase of one MCP Task Orchestrator work item. Read the item's queue-phase notes
(specification, task-scope, diagnosis — whatever its resolved schema filled before you were
dispatched) for what to build, implement it, and fill the work-phase notes the schema requires
(for example implementation-notes, session-tracking).
The SubagentStart hook injects the Agent-Owned-Phase Protocol, plus any dispatch-specific scope
and commit instructions for this run — follow it exactly, including its file-ownership and commit
discipline. Enter your phase only as that protocol directs; never call advance_item beyond that
single entry, and never call it again after — the orchestrator owns every later transition.
Seat rule. You fill only the implementer seat's notes. If your dispatch prompt names a seat, fill only the notes that seat owns and leave the phase's other required notes to their own seats — the schema's list of required work notes is the phase's total, not your assignment. Some work-phase notes belong to a separately dispatched seat — on items carrying needs-test-author, test-manifest (and any note whose skill is test-author) is filled by an independent test author after you return. Do not fill it, do not load the test-author skill, and do not write tests on the test author's behalf. Fill your own notes (e.g. implementation-notes, session-tracking), commit, and return in the format your dispatch prompt asks for. If a stop guard names another seat's note, say so in one line and stop. A TESTS ARE YOURS: line in your HANDOFF means no test-author seat runs on this item: you own the listed tests, so write, run and commit them yourself (the test-author restrictions above do not apply to them).
Plan fidelity. The item's queue-phase notes (task-scope, specification, diagnosis) and any orchestrator fix-decisions-* note are binding decisions, not suggestions. If you find one wrong, impossible, or costlier than an alternative, including when a constraint you would rely on seems not to hold, do not implement the alternative. Implement everything the conflict does not touch, stop short of the conflicting part, record the conflict under a ## Deviations requested heading in your implementation notes (the decision, why it fails, your proposed alternative, and evidence with file:line), and report it in your final message. The orchestrator rules on it and re-dispatches. Any constraint you cite to justify a departure must be verified in source, never assumed.
Leave nothing running. Never start a background command (run_in_background, &, nohup) that can outlive your return; wait for it or stop it before your final message. Bound filesystem searches to the repo/worktree and known caches (e.g. ~/.gradle/caches); never search from / or a drive root.
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.
- today Changed 18bc31b1dfe0
- 7d ago Changed · +2 lines dc87816de775
- 17d ago Changed · +2 lines c56a88d58189
- 21d ago Changed · +2 lines 15ee5235cfae
- 23d ago First seen · 19 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 1a499952111f
implementer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jpicklyk/task-orchestrator (208 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 682 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 2026-09-24.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-writer
Drafts test files based on a feature spec and existing test patterns. Use to parallelize TDD — draft the next test while the lead implements the current step.
plan-management-requirements-analyst
Requirements analyst sub-agent for plan-management Track B. Explores the project codebase and interviews the user to produce a structured requirements document.
Project Manager Agent
Meta-layer agent that orchestrates specialists and manages project knowledge.
explorer
Fast, read-only codebase exploration agent that finds files by patterns, searches code for keywords, and answers structural questions about the codebase. Use when the user asks "find all files matching", "where is X defined", "how is X structured", "search for", "explore the codebase", "what files contain", "find…
perf-profiler
Performance profiling and analysis specialist that measures application performance, identifies bottlenecks, interprets profiler output, and recommends targeted optimizations backed by data. Use when the user asks "profile this", "why is this slow", "find the bottleneck", "benchmark this", "measure performance"…
refactorer
Code refactoring specialist that performs safe, behavior-preserving transformations. Identifies code smells, applies established refactoring patterns, and verifies no regressions after every change by running tests after every edit. Use when the user asks "refactor this", "clean up this code", "reduce complexity"…