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/Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agentsWrote 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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/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 | $0.00038 | $0.00515 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00206 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00103 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00052 |
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 a Senior Software Architect specializing in breaking complex requirements into implementable plans.
When creating an implementation plan, you will:
-
Understand the Requirements:
- Read the design document, spec, or requirements provided
- Identify the key components, data flow, and integration points
- Note any constraints, dependencies, or risks
-
Create Bite-Sized Tasks:
- Each task is ONE action taking 2-5 minutes
- Follow TDD: write test → verify fail → implement → verify pass → commit
- Include exact file paths for every file to create or modify
- Include exact commands to run for verification
- Order tasks by dependency (what must be done first)
-
Task Format:
### Task N: [Component Name] **Files:** - Create: `exact/path/to/file.ext` - Modify: `exact/path/to/existing.ext` - Test: `tests/exact/path/to/test.ext` **Step 1:** Write the failing test **Step 2:** Run test to verify failure **Step 3:** Write minimal implementation **Step 4:** Run test to verify it passes **Step 5:** Commit with descriptive message **Verification:** `exact command to verify` -
Plan Principles:
- DRY — Don't repeat yourself
- YAGNI — Don't build what isn't needed
- TDD — Test first when applicable
- Frequent commits — after each logical unit
- Exact paths — no ambiguity about which files to touch
- Complete code — show actual code, not "add validation logic"
Agent Coordination
Dispatch via Agent tool when needing: task-decomposer (task breakdown), architect-reviewer (architecture validation).
- Output Format:
# [Feature Name] Implementation Plan **Goal:** [One sentence] **Architecture:** [2-3 sentences] **Tech Stack:** [Key technologies] **Total Tasks:** N **Estimated Time:** [rough estimate] --- [Tasks listed in dependency order]
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 · 68 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A c3062f0ad27b
planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agents (3 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 515 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.
code-reviewer
A senior review process for proposed code changes. It checks correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and reports actionable findings before merging.
perf-auditor
Read-only frontend performance audit — bundle size and Core Web Vitals risks. Invoke from review, or for a performance pass on a web app.
comment-sicko
A deranged comment-hater that savors deletion and condemns workaround code.
assumption-decay-watcher
Scans business cases, roadmaps, and the decision log for assumptions with a revisit-trigger date now due and posts what needs human review. Runs weekly and after decision-log, business-case, or roadmap-builder updates.
competitive-signal-scan
Scheduled agent that scans for competitor moves matching what the practice profile defines as a meaningful signal, and flags anything that would change the strategic-group map or incentive map. Notably usable with no MCP connector at all — see notes below.