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/pluginslab/wp-agentic-kitWrote 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/pluginslab/wp-agentic-kit/readme)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pluginslab/wp-agentic-kit/readme"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pluginslab/wp-agentic-kit/readme/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/pluginslab/wp-agentic-kit/readme"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pluginslab/wp-agentic-kit/readme.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00895 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
README 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 24d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
.claude/agents/
Sub-agents the main Claude Code agent can delegate to. Each one runs in its own context window, with its own restricted tool set, so the main agent stays focused.
Maps to the talk's framework
Discernimento. Sub-agents are the discernment D — independent, narrow-scope judgement before a human signs off. Read-only by design: they surface what a human should know, never apply fixes.
Why use a sub-agent
The kit's bar for shipping a sub-agent: it has to do something a skill can't. In practice that means either tool restriction (the sub-agent literally can't call Edit / Write) or context isolation for work that would otherwise dump thousands of lines into the main agent's window.
A "specialist who writes blocks" or "specialist who writes REST endpoints" doesn't clear that bar — it's a skill in disguise. Nor does "a planning agent" or "a coding agent": planning is already a skill, and a coding agent needs the main thread's context and hands back a diff rather than a conclusion. So the kit ships three sub-agents, all read-only, each covering one thing the main agent can't do safely or cheaply in its own window.
Shipped sub-agents
| Sub-agent | Tools | When to invoke |
|---|---|---|
plan-reviewer |
Read, Grep, Glob, Bash | During Phase 2.5 of wordpress-feature, after scripts/open-plan-pr.sh opens the plan PR. Audits spec + plan against PLANNING.md and the constitution. |
security-reviewer |
Read, Grep, Glob, Bash | Before merging a feature PR, before a release, after any change to input handling. |
playground-verifier |
Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, wp-playground MCP |
Before merging a feature PR, and right after a scaffold. Boots the plugin in a real WordPress instance and verifies it activates, serves its routes, and uninstalls cleanly. |
The three map onto what can go wrong at three different times: the plan is wrong (plan-reviewer), the code is unsafe (security-reviewer), or the code is fine on paper and broken in practice (playground-verifier). The last one is the only gate in the kit that boots WordPress — everything else, quality.sh included, is static.
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +5 lines 8a256343ea19
- 1mo ago First seen · 50 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 30278aafbf3f
README is an agent published in the GitHub repository pluginslab/wp-agentic-kit (19 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 895 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
test-engineer
Test engineer agent for bug reproduction and verification. Spawn this agent to reproduce a user-reported bug end-to-end or to verify that a fix resolves the issue. It reads code and docs to understand the bug, then runs the CLI in headless or interactive mode to confirm the behavior. It can write test scripts as a…
researcher
Multi-depth research agent with configurable intensity. Use for any research task — from quick lookups to nuclear-level exhaustive investigations. Specify depth in the prompt: surface, basic, deep, in-depth, ultra, nuclear, overkill.
questioner
Mandatory pre-implementation interrogation. Use before any non-trivial coding task to surface assumptions, find existing solutions, and prevent over-engineering. Forces 6 critical questions before a single line of code.
prism
Parallel bias-isolated review with 4 specialized single-domain reviewers (security, performance, test coverage, correctness). Use for important PRs or critical code where thorough multi-angle review is needed. Each perspective has blinders — forces deeper analysis per domain.
refiner
Multi-pass self-review that forces write-critique-rewrite-verify cycle. Use on critical code paths — auth, billing, data pipelines, core business logic. Catches issues single-pass review misses. Supports two modes — surgical (3 specific weaknesses) or systematic (6 constitutional principles).
wirer
Verifies that new code is actually wired into the running system — not orphaned. Use PROACTIVELY after any implementation to catch dead code, unregistered routes, unrendered components, and disconnected modules. The.