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 skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/post-plan-workflownpx skills add jpicklyk/task-orchestrator --skill post-plan-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jpicklyk/task-orchestratorWrote 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/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/post-plan-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/post-plan-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/post-plan-workflow.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00024 | $0.01222 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00611 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
post-plan-workflow 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 4d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Post-Plan Workflow — Materialize and Implement
Plan approval is the green light for the full pipeline. Proceed through all three phases without stopping.
Phase 1: Materialize
Complete materialization before any implementation begins.
Prefer a stashed docRef over re-authoring note bodies. On HTTP+REST workspaces, the plan-capture hook stashes the just-approved plan as a plan document as ExitPlanMode fires, and reports the slug via additionalContext (Task Orchestrator: plan stashed as plan document '<slug>' (root <rootId>)). When that context is present, or manage_plan_documents(operation="list", rootId=..., status="pending") confirms a pending document for this root, use it as the source of truth for materialization — quote/reference its content instead of retyping the plan into note bodies. Fall back to the plan text already in context when no stashed doc exists (stdio setups, or the hook failed open).
- Create MCP items from the approved plan using
create_work_tree(preferred for structured work with dependencies) ormanage_items(for individual items). Apply appropriate schema tags based on the plan and the project's.taskorchestrator/config.yaml— this activates gate enforcement for each item. If the config defines separate schemas for containers vs. child tasks, apply the appropriate tag at each level.- Anchor the root under the project when known: resolve the project rootId from session context (injected by the SessionStart hook) or
.taskorchestrator/config.yaml'sproject.rootId. When known, set the new root item'sparentIdto that rootId (directly, or to the appropriate category container beneath it if one already exists) so materialized work lands inside the project's tree instead of at a bare depth 0. When no rootId is known, create at depth 0 as before.
- Anchor the root under the project when known: resolve the project rootId from session context (injected by the SessionStart hook) or
- Wire dependency edges between items — use
BLOCKSfor sequencing,fan-out/fan-inpatterns for parallel work - Check
expectedNotesin create responses — if the item's tags match a schema, the response includes the expected note keys and phases. Fill required queue-phase notes (feature-summary,task-scope, etc.) with content from the plan before advancing.feature-implementationroot: keep itsfeature-summarynote lean — goal (2-3 sentences), a findings→tasks table mapping plan findings to the child items just created, dependency edges between those children, and a pointer to non-goals (target under 2k chars). Put full alternatives/blast-radius/risk-flags/test-strategy detail in each child'stask-scopenote instead — that's where/spec-quality's full bar applies.
- Verify all item UUIDs exist — confirm the full item graph is materialized before proceeding
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 55 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A ac79c94d3389
post-plan-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository jpicklyk/task-orchestrator (205 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,222 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 skills, from other repositories
file-todos
File-based todo and task tracking in the todos/ directory. Use when creating, triaging, listing, or managing todo files, tracking work items, managing the backlog, converting PR comments to tracked tasks, or checking todo status and dependencies.
branch-surgery-pr-split
Split oversized or mixed-concern branches into smaller, reviewable PR stacks with safety refs, topology selection, parity audits, and merge sequencing. Use when a PR or branch is too large, difficult to review, mixed across concerns, conflict-prone, or needs to be decomposed without losing net changes.
workpackage-management
Use when performing workpackage actions: start, pause, complete, delete, defer, reorder, update progress, or check dependencies. Not for reading WP history or definitions.
cf-workpackage
Manage workpackage lifecycle — view status, list, create, start, pause, track progress, validate, complete, or delete. Use when the user mentions workpackages, asks to start or pause work, wants progress updates, or needs to change workpackage state.
cf-plan
Manage and view the development plan — status, progress, blockers, phases, and next steps. Use when the user asks about plan status, needs next-step recommendations, wants to create or modify the plan, or asks about phases and milestones.
do-it
Turn the current discussion into a task step and implement it — adds step to task file, updates spec if needed, then implements with review-fix loop.