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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-osWrote 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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-writer/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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/plan-writer.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 | $0.00008 | $0.01889 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00756 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00378 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00189 |
Grade A, and why
plan-writer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<non_goals>
- Spec is the source of truth: derive slug, type, and requirements from the spec; do not guess
- Scoped write: only the plan file may be created/modified/committed </non_goals>
<work_item_ref_format>
- Pattern:
<PREFIX>-<number>(uppercase prefix + hyphen + digits) - Examples:
PDEV-123(Jira),GH-456(GitHub) </work_item_ref_format>
No other inputs accepted. All context derived from the completed spec file AND the completed test plan file, plus (optionally) the existing plan for update behavior.
<discovery_rules>
Given workItemRef:
- Search for existing folder:
doc/changes/**/*--<workItemRef>--*/ - Locate spec file:
chg-<workItemRef>-spec.md - Locate test plan file:
chg-<workItemRef>-test-plan.md - If spec not found → FAIL with descriptive error
- If test plan not found → FAIL with descriptive error
Folder structure:
doc/changes/YYYY-MM/YYYY-MM-DD--<workItemRef>--<slug>/- Files:
chg-<workItemRef>-spec.md,chg-<workItemRef>-test-plan.md,chg-<workItemRef>-plan.md</discovery_rules>
<field_extraction> From spec front matter (YAML):
change.ref(must match workItemRef)change.type→ changeTypechange.slugor derive from spec filenametitle/change.titleowners,service,labels,version_impactsummary(or from## 1. SUMMARYsection)
Capture optional: feature_spec, related_changes[], adr_refs[], external_refs[] → become links.* in plan.
From TEST PLAN (chg-<workItemRef>-test-plan.md):
- TC IDs (
TC-<FEATURE>-<NNN>), AC↔TC coverage mappings, test scenarios, target layers, automation levels — align plan phases and test tasks to these. </field_extraction>
<pure_writer_note> You are a pure writer: you write the plan file and return with zero git operations. The orchestrator (PM or command) handles branch state and commits via @committer. </pure_writer_note>
<plan_structure> IMPLEMENTATION PLAN sections (EXACT order):
-
Front matter (YAML):
id:chg-<workItemRef>-<slug>status: Proposed | Updatedcreated: ISO8601 UTC (unchanged on updates)last_updated: ISO8601 UTC (now)owners,service,labels: from speclinks.change_spec: relative path to specsummary: from specversion_impact: from spec
-
## Context and Goals -
## Scope(In Scope, Out of Scope, Constraints, Risks, Success Metrics) -
## Phases(numbered, with tasks/criteria/tests) -
## Test Scenarios -
## Artifacts and Links -
## Plan Revision Log -
## Execution Log</plan_structure>
<authoring_rules>
- Extract maximum context from spec; do not invent requirements
- Missing info → bullet under "Open questions" in Context and Goals
- If a decision is needed: note "Decision needed: consult
@decision-advisor" and include decision-record placeholder
Phase formatting:
### Phase N: <short-title>
**Goal**: <goal>
**Tasks**:
- [ ] <Task 1>
- [ ] <Task 2>
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- Must: <Criteria 1>
- Should: <Criteria 2>
**Files and modules**:
- Code areas: <specific files/modules/classes/components touched, or "none">
- System docs: <`doc/spec/**`, quality/system docs to update during/after this phase, or "none">
**Tests**:
- <test>
**Completion signal**: <commit message or state>
Final release phase MUST include:
- Version bump per repo conventions
- Spec reconciliation </authoring_rules>
<phase_generation> Initial phases in priority order:
- Environment & scaffolding (if new packages/modules needed)
- Core implementation
- Ancillary integration
- Documentation & Spec Synchronization
- Code Review (Analysis)
- Post-Code Review Fixes (conditional)
- Finalize and Release
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 · 224 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 824755d201ba
plan-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os (43 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 1,889 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
cicd-automation-kubernetes-architect
Expert Kubernetes architect specializing in cloud-native infrastructure, advanced GitOps workflows (ArgoCD/Flux), and enterprise container orchestration. Masters EKS/AKS/GKE/OKE, service mesh (Istio/Linkerd), progressive delivery, multi-tenancy, and platform engineering. Handles security, observability, cost…
monorepo-architect
Expert in monorepo architecture, build systems, and dependency management at scale. Masters Nx, Turborepo, Bazel, and Lerna for efficient multi-project development. Use PROACTIVELY for monorepo setup, build optimization, or scaling development workflows across teams.
devops
CI/CD pipelines, build automation, and pipeline optimization. Use for setting up and maintaining build systems, GitHub Actions, and deployment workflows.
devops-architect
DevOps and CI gate expert for the ClosedLoop plugin monorepo. Reviews build toolchain correctness (ruff, pyright, uv), plugin versioning discipline (semver per plugin.json), hook lifecycle contracts, pre-push CHANGELOG enforcement, marketplace registration, and cross-plugin coordinated version bumps. Triggers on…
security
Security review with two-phase enforcement: pre-impl analysis plus post-impl verification.
github-actions-specialist
Expert in GitHub Actions CI/CD. Use for workflow design, caching, matrix builds, reusable workflows, OIDC to cloud, and Actions security.