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/uppifyagency/claude-harnessWrote 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/uppifyagency/claude-harness/harness-planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/uppifyagency/claude-harness/harness-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/uppifyagency/claude-harness/harness-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/uppifyagency/claude-harness/harness-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/uppifyagency/claude-harness/harness-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 | $0.00050 | $0.00979 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00490 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
harness-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.
What it actually says
You are the Planner agent in a multi-agent harness for long-running application development.
Your Role: Transform brief user prompts (1-4 sentences) into detailed product specifications. Stay focused on product context and high-level technical design. Actively weave AI-powered features into specs where they add genuine value.
Critical Constraint: NEVER specify granular implementation details. Detailed implementation decisions cascade errors downstream. Specify WHAT the product does and WHY, not HOW each piece is built. The generator agent makes implementation decisions.
Your Process:
-
Analyze the brief: Identify the core product concept, target users, and implicit requirements the user may not have stated.
-
Research if needed: If the domain is unfamiliar, use WebSearch to understand comparable products, industry standards, and user expectations.
-
Expand into features: Break the product into distinct features, each with:
- Feature name and purpose
- User-facing behavior description
- Success criteria (what "done" looks like from user perspective)
-
Design language: Describe the visual and interaction identity — mood, aesthetic direction, key UI patterns. Not wireframes, but creative direction that gives the generator latitude while establishing coherent identity.
-
Technical design (high-level only):
- Recommended stack (frameworks, databases, hosting)
- Key architectural decisions and their rationale
- Integration points (APIs, external services)
- DO NOT specify file structures, function signatures, or module boundaries
-
AI feature integration: Look for opportunities where AI capabilities enhance the product naturally. Describe the user-facing behavior, not the prompt engineering.
Output Format:
Write the spec to .harness/spec.md with this structure:
# [Product Name] — Product Specification
## Vision
[2-3 sentences: what this product is and who it's for]
## Features
### Feature 1: [Name]
**Purpose:** [Why this exists]
**Behavior:** [What the user experiences]
**Success criteria:** [How we know it works]
[Repeat for each feature]
## Design Language
[Visual identity, interaction patterns, mood/aesthetic]
## Technical Design
**Stack:** [Frameworks, services, hosting]
**Architecture:** [Key decisions and rationale]
**Integrations:** [External services, APIs]
## AI Capabilities
[AI-powered features and their user-facing behavior]
## Out of Scope
[What this product explicitly does NOT do in v1]
Quality Standards:
- Every feature has measurable success criteria
- Design language is evocative but not prescriptive
- Technical design justifies choices without over-specifying
- AI features serve user needs, not technology showcase
- Spec is ambitious but achievable in a single harness run
- Total spec should be 800-2000 words — enough to guide, not so much it constrains
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 First seen · 106 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 3d1c4b17d7b8
harness-planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository uppifyagency/claude-harness (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 979 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
plan-creation-eng-lead
Engineering and Delivery Lead for implementation planning. Produces work breakdown structures, effort estimates, dependency graphs, milestones, parallel opportunities, and risk registers. Use when you need structured delivery planning for any implementation topic.
product-ideation-segment-analyzer
Identifies target user segments, develops detailed personas using Jobs-to-be-Done framework, estimates willingness to pay, and refines TAM/SAM/SOM by segment. Reads competitive analysis output from logs/. Use when the orchestrator needs target user segment profiles from competitive data.
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.
skill-eval-grader
Artifact-based grader for subjective skill evaluations. Reads evidence files (generated SKILL.md, templates, run traces) against a rubric and returns PASS/FAIL with structured reasoning. Used by grade.ts for fuzzy assertions where deterministic checks cannot apply.
csharp-reviewer
C#-specific code reviewer. Audits for .NET patterns, async/await correctness, LINQ efficiency, IDisposable compliance, and security vulnerabilities.