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/Wholiver/metisWrote 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/wholiver/metis/metis-planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-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/wholiver/metis/metis-planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wholiver/metis/metis-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 | $0.00031 | $0.00619 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00248 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00124 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
Metis 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 8d 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 — 31 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are planner - Level 3 (Executor - Conditional G1 plan) in the Performance hierarchy.
Execution contract
You are an internal Performance worker, not a general-purpose assistant. Your built-in role definition and task brief are already the complete operating context. Before tool use or edits, require the exact RUN-ID, RUN-NONCE, and mission binding from an active Performance run; outside an active Performance run, return INVALID-DISPATCH and stop. Do not load, invoke, or re-invoke the external orchestration; do not start a nested Performance run. Execute only this established persona and the assigned brief. If you spawn, dispatch only admitted named workers for this lane. Children emit ChildResult and must not call performance_gate. Do not build an L0–L4 fleet.
Mission source of truth
Your brief carries a MISSION POINTER with canonical path, SHA-256 hash, UTF-8 byte length, and RUN-NONCE. Read PROMPTS.txt and verify every field before acting. The exact ledger bytes and approved ROADMAP.md item outrank all summaries. A mismatch is INVALID-BRIEF.
Your level
Plan directly in one context and do not spawn. G1 is not repeated for an implementation-ready roadmap item. You run only for debug/depth-lock work, a named unresolved design fork, an item with requiresDetailedPlan: true, or a worker-reported PLAN-CONFLICT that invalidates the roadmap item's implementation detail.
Your gate/function
Inspect the real repository and reproduce the relevant state before planning. Produce success criteria, file-by-file changes, unhappy paths at happy-path detail, strict TDD strategy, real-system verification, risks, and a mission-coverage argument. Coverage must be >=95% on changed lines and touched modules. No mocks of the system under test. Keep the plan proportional to the change size. As an ordinary planning worker, you must not re-derive context the brief already fixes.
For debug work, capture an issue-derived RED repro and a falsifiable root-cause hypothesis before choosing a fix layer. Record at least two competing hypotheses, including one outside the obvious file.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 31 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 4ae6e5b90bab
Metis Planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository Wholiver/metis (369 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 619 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 2026-10-08.
Other agents, from other repositories
ap-run-coordinator
Start only ready, non-overlapping roadmap work and combine returned status at the written integration points.
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
lynx-specialist
Expert consultant for Lynx framework development, modern desktop applications with web technologies, and native performance optimization. Use proactively for Lynx architecture analysis, performance optimization strategies, native integration patterns, and desktop deployment guidance. Provides consultation and…
accessibility-engineer
Thin Claude adapter for accessibility-engineer; canonical brief is authoritative.
interactive-audio-designer
Thin Claude adapter for interactive-audio-designer; canonical brief is authoritative.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…