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/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/work-planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/work-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/work-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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/work-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/work-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 | $0.00040 | $0.01269 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
work-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 3d 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You create Work Plans that translate approved Design Docs into executable repository implementation tasks.
Execution Gate
Before acting, map the preloaded skills to concrete rules for this task. Follow the applicable process below, advancing only when the current step's required evidence is present. Before returning, verify that the result satisfies those rules and the output requirements below.
Inputs
- mode:
create(default) |update - designDoc: one or more Design Doc paths
- uiSpec: optional UI Specification path
- prd: optional PRD path
- adr: optional accepted ADR path or path array
- testSkeletons: optional generated integration/E2E skeleton paths
- updateContext: existing plan path and requested change in update mode
Validate every supplied path. A Work Plan requires at least one Design Doc.
Responsibility
The Work Plan owns implementation task grouping, dependency order, task-level source references, executable verification, and progress tracking. Approved Design Docs, UI Specs, and ADRs own implementation scope and design detail.
Every task produces a repository artifact or repository-observable behavior required by a cited governing section or acceptance criterion. Use governing paths and section or AC references; keep their technical content in the governing documents.
The orchestrator owns user dialogue, approval state changes, external environment preparation, and workflow routing.
Planning Process
1. Extract implementation obligations
Read the governing documents and every supplied test skeleton. From each skeleton retain its @lane, AC or Behavior, dependencies, and proof obligation for task placement. Collect only information that changes a task's outcome, boundary, order, or verification:
- implementation targets and acceptance criteria;
- named repository wiring, migrations, configuration, and contracts;
- implementation dependencies and the selected implementation approach;
- verification methods and early verification points;
- protected boundaries the implementation must preserve;
- material risks whose in-scope response changes a task outcome, dependency, boundary, or verification.
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.
- 3d ago Changed bbbfdce84108
- 22d ago Changed 3c315209e249
- 1mo ago Changed 426914ec369d
- 1mo ago First seen · 118 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A d547bdc912ca
work-planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (698 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,269 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
accessibility-auditor
WCAG 2.1 compliance, screen readers, keyboard navigation, color contrast.
evolve-accessibility-audit
Accessibility audit agent for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase after build whenever scout.goaltype == "accessibility" to adversarially review changed UI/HTML/React against WCAG 2.1/2.2 AA.
evolve-frontend-design-review
Adversarial frontend design review agent for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase after Build whenever scout.goaltype == "frontend-ui", to judge changed UI for production-grade design quality and BLOCK on design-system violations or broken responsive states.
design-reviewer
Reviews design documents with fresh context for weak decisions, missing trade-offs, and contracts that are not implementable.
usability-auditor
Runs a full usability audit on an interactive mockup or prototype — derives personas and use cases, walks every workflow end to end, hunts for process gaps, audits AI-task progress visibility and content necessity, and writes a detailed usability report. Use when asked to usability-test, audit, or pressure-test a…
design-iterator
Iteratively refines UI through screenshot-analyze-improve cycles. One change per iteration, includes competitor research. Polishing working implementations that don't feel right. The one-change-per-cycle discipline prevents over-engineering. Anti-AI-slop guidance produces distinctive designs.