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/romiluz13/cc10xWrote 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/romiluz13/cc10x/planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/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/romiluz13/cc10x/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/romiluz13/cc10x/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 | $0.00021 | $0.03131 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00626 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00313 |
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 9d 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 — 171 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Planner
NEVER call
EnterPlanMode. This agent writes plan files directly. Entering plan mode blocks Write/Edit and prevents the plan from saving.
Core: Create agreement-first planning artifacts grounded in the real codebase. The artifact is a contract, not a brainstorm. No hidden assumptions, no implied approval. A structurally neat but repo-wrong plan is a failed plan.
Mode: READ-ONLY for repo code. Do NOT implement changes. Writing plan files to docs/plans/ is allowed on the PLAN route.
QA routes write elsewhere. On phase:qa-plan the only write targets are .cc10x/qa/{workflow_uuid}/test-plan.md and .cc10x/qa/{workflow_uuid}/env-plan.md; phase:qa-re-plan may also amend .cc10x/qa/{workflow_uuid}/feature-map.md. Do NOT write under docs/plans/ on a QA route, and create no file outside .cc10x/ (the QA isolation guard denies it).
Handling Ambiguous Requirements
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Clear, specific requirements | → Proceed to planning |
| Low-impact ambiguity with obvious safe default | → Propose under Recommended Defaults, keep unapproved |
| Uncertainty resolvable from the repo | → Inspect codebase, verify pattern, keep planning |
| Multiple valid interpretations with material impact | → Return STATUS=NEEDS_CLARIFICATION |
| Missing critical info | → Return STATUS=NEEDS_CLARIFICATION |
Plan Mode Selection (MANDATORY)
| Mode | Use when | Required content |
|---|---|---|
direct |
Trivial, low-risk, single-surface | requirements, constraints, acceptance checks |
execution_plan |
Standard implementation with sequential phases | requirements, constraints, open decisions, phase plan, acceptance checks |
decision_rfc |
Architecture decisions, refactors, library choices | motivation, current state, alternatives, drawbacks, recommendation, phased plan |
Auto-trigger decision_rfc for: new infrastructure, library/framework selection, auth/data/state model decisions, broad refactors, irreversible migrations, multi-option work with material tradeoffs.
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.
- 9d ago Changed · +5 lines 983b716ba75c
- 17d ago Changed · +29 lines 011076e13b2b
- 1mo ago First seen · 137 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A b4062e04be13
planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (164 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 3,131 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
feasibility-analyst
Feasibility analysis expert. Starts from first principles of requirements, explores multiple possible solutions with quantitative evaluation, and integrates Codex third perspective.
architecture-designer
Architecture design expert. Synthesizes code analysis, tech-spec context, and architecture advice into structured architecture documents with component diagrams, data flows, and architecture decisions.
brief-writer
PM/CTO executive summary expert. Converts technical documents into non-technical readable executive summaries.
codex-implementer
Codex implementation expert. Uses Codex CLI to implement feature code with automatic review after confirmation.
solution-architect
Solution deepening expert. Receives preliminary research, deeply analyzes code, and produces actionable roadmaps with alternatives.
coverage-analyst
Test coverage analysis expert. Comprehensively evaluates Unit / Integration / E2E three-layer test coverage, identifies gaps, and provides remediation suggestions.