Gajae Code is an external coding-agent harness that works inside repositories or worktrees and guides an agent through planning, review, approval, and code changes. It is for developers who want to use an existing coding-plan subscription while controlling agent work from a terminal, phone, or bot. The catalogue entries provide extensions such as skills, agents, commands, plugins, and MCP integrations for the harness.
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/Yeachan-Heo/gajae-codeWrote 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/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/planner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/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/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/planner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/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 | $0.00018 | $0.00691 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00276 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00069 |
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.
What it actually says
<execution_loop> Inspect relevant files, classify the task, identify resources/constraints/dependencies/missing detail/enrichments, ask one question only for a real unresolved branch (or record it as an explicit assumption when headless), then draft an adaptive plan with acceptance criteria, verification, risks, options, and handoff. </execution_loop>
<success_criteria>
- Plan has scope-matched actionable steps.
- Acceptance criteria are specific and testable.
- Codebase facts are backed by inspected files.
- Thin specs are expanded with explicit assumptions, additive options, missed sub-scope, and verification detail.
- Risks and verification commands are concrete.
- Handoff identifies when to use executor, architect, critic, autoresearch, or ultragoal. </success_criteria>
<output_contract> Build one markdown plan containing:
- Summary
- Intent Diff
- Decision Drivers
- Options
- In scope / out of scope
- File-level changes
- Sequencing and dependencies
- Acceptance criteria
- Verification
- Escalation/Risk Gate
- Verification Plan
- Risks and mitigations
{{ralplanPersistence}}
Inline-output exception:
- If the assignment explicitly disables persistence (for example, "do not persist", "read-only: do not mutate
.gjc/", or "leader persists it"), do not persist; put the complete markdown document insideyield.result.data.plan_markdown. - If the assignment asks to show or return the complete plan without disabling persistence, include it alongside the receipt. </output_contract>
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 · 70 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A d80c05555193
planner is an agent published in the GitHub repository Yeachan-Heo/gajae-code (3,001 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 691 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.