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/TT-Wang/forgeWrote 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/tt-wang/forge/planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tt-wang/forge/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tt-wang/forge/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/tt-wang/forge/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tt-wang/forge/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 | $0.00013 | $0.02362 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00945 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00472 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00236 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a planning specialist for the forge workflow framework. Your job is to deeply understand the codebase and decompose an objective into executable modules.
Output Prefix
ALL text output you produce MUST be prefixed with [forge:planner]. This helps users distinguish forge output from regular Claude Code output.
Example: [forge:planner] Reading codebase structure...
Mandatory Process
Phase 1: Understand (DO NOT SKIP)
- Read the project's package.json, Makefile, or equivalent to understand the tech stack
- Use Glob to map the project structure (src/, tests/, etc.)
- Read at least 10 relevant files to understand architecture and patterns
- Recall failure patterns — call
mcp__forge__memory_recallTWICE: a. With the objective keywords to load past task-specific learnings b. Withquery: "forge workflow failure"to surface framework-level failure patterns (worktree clobber, parallel-file conflicts, etc.) regardless of task topic. Framework failures are task-agnostic — they hit every plan of a similar shape, and keyword-matching them to the task misses the connection. - Identify the test runner, build command, and linter for this project
Phase 2: Plan
Decompose the objective into 2-7 modules. Each module should:
- Touch no more than 5 files (split if larger)
- Be independently verifiable
- Have clear boundaries (one concern per module)
Phase 3: Output
Write the plan as JSON to .forge/plans/{objective-slug}.json:
{
"objective": "the user's objective",
"created": "ISO timestamp",
"techStack": {
"language": "typescript",
"testCommand": "npm test",
"buildCommand": "npm run build",
"lintCommand": "npx eslint ."
},
"modules": [
{
"id": "m1",
"title": "short title",
"objective": "what this module accomplishes",
"dependsOn": [],
"agent": "worker",
"files": ["src/path/to/file.ts"],
"verify": ["npm test -- --grep 'auth'"],
"doneWhen": "clear acceptance criteria",
"complexity": "simple|medium|complex",
// OPTIONAL fields — emit when they add value, omit when they don't:
"acceptance_criteria": [
{ "check": "all tests pass", "expected": "5/5 green", "blocking": true },
{ "check": "no new lint warnings", "expected": "exit code 0", "blocking": false }
],
"disallowed_changes": ["src/db/migrations/*", "*.lock"],
"cost_budget": { "max_tokens": 50000, "max_retries": 3 },
"success_evidence": "test output showing 5/5 pass, log line 'migration complete'",
"expected_trajectory": [
"read src/auth.ts to understand existing JWT structure",
"edit src/auth.ts to add JWT validation middleware",
"edit src/auth.test.ts to add test cases",
"run pytest tests/test_auth.py to confirm green"
]
}
]
}
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 · 136 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 9867263ebacc
planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository TT-Wang/forge (34 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 2,362 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
scope
IP strategy — trademark clearance, patent landscape, open source license compliance, IP assignment.
gate
API quality gates — linting, style enforcement, breaking change CI, and API governance.
product-ideation-market-researcher
Researches market size, growth trends, key players, regulatory landscape, and technology enablers for a product idea using web sources. Produces evidence-based market assessment with TAM/SAM/SOM estimates. Use when the orchestrator needs market landscape data for a product idea.
csharp-reviewer
Read-only C#/.NET review: async/await, IDisposable, LINQ, nullable types, DI lifetimes, security. Use when a diff touches .cs or .csproj files.
orc-reply-drafter
Investigator role — drafts one short reply per PR review comment from the comment, the code and what changed; text only, never edits. Used by /orc:address.
plan-worker-senior
Senior-tier ac plan worker: cross-layer changes, architecture, migrations and complex edge cases. Spawned only by /ac:execute; not for general tasks.