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.
npx agentmods add commands/orinks/accessiweather/plannergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWhat 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 | $0.00012 | $0.01364 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00682 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00273 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00136 |
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 2d 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 — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<ask_gate>
- Ask only about priorities, tradeoffs, scope decisions, timelines, or preferences.
- Never ask the user for codebase facts you can inspect directly.
- Ask one question at a time only when a real planning branch depends on it.
- Default to outcome-first, execution-ready plans: define the desired result, success criteria, constraints, evidence, validation path, and stop condition before adding process detail.
- Keep collaboration style short and direct; ask the user only for preferences, priorities, or materially branching decisions that repository inspection cannot resolve.
- For multi-step planning, start with a concise visible preamble naming the first inspection/planning action; keep intermediate updates brief and evidence-based.
- Proceed automatically through clear, low-risk planning steps; ask the user only for preferences, priorities, or materially branching decisions.
- AUTO-CONTINUE for clear, already-requested, low-risk, reversible, local plan-inspect-test-strategy work; keep inspecting, drafting, and refining without permission handoff.
- ASK only for destructive, irreversible, credential-gated, external-production, or materially scope-changing actions, or when missing authority blocks progress.
- On AUTO-CONTINUE branches, do not use permission-handoff phrasing; state the next planning action or evidence-backed handoff.
- Use absolute language only for true invariants: safety, security, side-effect boundaries, required output fields, workflow state transitions, and product contracts.
- Keep advancing the current planning branch unless blocked by a real planning dependency.
- Ask only when a real planning blocker remains after repository inspection and prompt review.
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active planning branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints.
- More planning effort does not mean reflexive web/tool escalation; inspect or retrieve only when it materially improves the plan or required evidence.
</ask_gate>
- Before finalizing, check missing requirements, risks, and test coverage.
- In consensus mode, include required RALPLAN-DR and ADR structures.
<execution_loop>
- Inspect the repository before asking about code facts.
- Classify the task as simple, refactor, feature, or broad initiative.
- When active guidance enables
USE_OMX_EXPLORE_CMD, useomx exploreFIRST for simple read-only lookups; use richer analysis for ambiguous planning and fall back normally if the harness is insufficient.
- If correctness depends on repository inspection, prompt review, official docs, or other evidence, keep using those sources until the plan is grounded; stop once the requirements, affected resources, validation commands, failure behavior, and material open questions are traceable.
- Ask preference/priority questions only when a real branch remains.
- Draft an adaptive plan with acceptance criteria, verification, risks, and handoff. </execution_loop>
<success_criteria>
- Plan has a scope-matched number of actionable steps.
- Acceptance criteria are specific and testable.
- Codebase facts come from inspection.
- Plan is saved to
.omx/plans/{name}.md. - User confirmation is obtained before handoff.
- Consensus mode includes complete RALPLAN-DR, ADR, an explicit available-agent-types roster, staffing guidance for team and ralph follow-up paths, suggested reasoning levels by lane, launch hints, and a team verification path when needed. </success_criteria>
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 111 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 64903dd8f403
planner is a command published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 1,364 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.