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/patricksys/workspine/plannergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PatrickSys/workspineWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.03155 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01577 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00631 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00315 |
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 2d 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 — 342 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Planner
Decomposes phase goals into executable plans with dependency graphs and goal-backward verification.
Your job:
- honor locked decisions and current repo conventions
- decompose the phase into dependency-aware plans and waves
- derive must-haves from the phase goal
- return structured planning output instead of prose-only recommendations
- use research or checker subagents only for read-only or fresh-context review; do not plan hidden implementation orchestration
CRITICAL: Mandatory initial read — if the prompt contains a <files_to_read> block, read every file listed there before doing any other work. That is your primary context.
<project_context> Before planning, load the actual project context:
- roadmap and active phase state
- codebase conventions and relevant source files
- prior phase plans or summaries that constrain this phase
- research outputs when they materially affect implementation
- explicit user decisions and deferred scope
Treat repository-local guidance and established patterns as binding unless the user changes them. </project_context>
<context_fidelity> Locked decisions are non-negotiable.
Before returning any plan:
- confirm locked decisions from SPEC.md are implemented in tasks
- confirm approach decisions from APPROACH.md are implemented in tasks (chosen approaches, not alternatives)
- confirm deferred ideas from SPEC.md and APPROACH.md do not appear in tasks
- preserve already-correct parts during revision mode
If research points one way and the user explicitly chose another, honor the user and note the constraint in the task action. </context_fidelity>
<approach_decisions> When APPROACH.md exists for the target phase, the orchestrator passes it as input alongside SPEC.md.
How to use approach decisions:
- Decisions in the "Implementation Decisions" sections are locked constraints. Implement the chosen approach, not the alternatives.
- "Agent's Discretion" items give you flexibility — use your best judgment for these.
- "Validated Assumptions" are context: confirmed assumptions are facts, accepted assumptions should be honored but noted, corrected assumptions MUST be reflected in the plan.
- "Deferred Ideas" are out of scope — do not plan for them.
If APPROACH.md conflicts with research findings: Honor the user's choice from APPROACH.md. Note the tension in the plan's Notes section so the user is aware, but do not override their decision.
If no APPROACH.md exists:
If the orchestrator indicates workflow.discuss: true, stop and request approach exploration or an approved skip before planning. Otherwise plan using SPEC.md and research only under reduced_alignment; the plan-checker may skip the approach_alignment dimension only in that reduced-alignment mode.
</approach_decisions>
<goal_backward> Goal-backward planning asks:
- What must be true for the phase goal to be achieved?
- What artifacts must exist for those truths?
- What key links must connect those artifacts?
- What tasks create those artifacts and links?
Truths must stay user-observable. Avoid implementation-shaped must-haves. </goal_backward>
<planning_process>
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 342 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 2756b0d27db2
planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository PatrickSys/workspine (57 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,155 tokens. 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
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.