bama
BAMA: 모든 Mac 앱을 만들 수 있습니다
AI 코딩 에이전트가 코드를 쓰기 전에 계획을 보여주며, 능력 제한으로 저렴한 모델을 제어합니다
A plan-first gate for AI coding agents. Makes a cheap model show you its plan before it can write, enforced by capability restriction rather than by prompt. Wired for Claude Code and Codex.
스킬ShellGitHub @AgriciDaniel직접 설치운영자 미확인
써 보셨어요? 한 번만 눌러 주세요. 로그인은 필요 없어요.
아직 감지된 업데이트가 없습니다. GitHub 릴리스가 나오면 여기에 보입니다.
개인 계정의 공개 저장소 소유자는 GitHub로 로그인해 운영자를 확인하고 소개를 직접 관리할 수 있습니다. 관리자 승인은 필요하지 않습니다.
로그인한 뒤 확인 파일을 만들어 이 저장소의 기본 브랜치에 30분 안에 커밋해 주세요. 다른 브랜치나 포크의 파일은 인정하지 않습니다. 파일을 올린 뒤 아래에서 확인하면 관리자 승인 없이 관리할 수 있습니다. 자격을 유지하려면 파일을 남겨 두세요.
로그인이 필요하면 로그인 화면으로 이동합니다. 로그인 후 이곳으로 돌아와 원하는 확인 버튼을 다시 눌러 주세요.
설치형 프로젝트는 배포 도메인 없이도 확인할 수 있습니다. 개인 저장소는 GitHub 로그인으로, 조직 저장소는 위의 저장소 확인 파일로 직접 확인해 주세요.
README 전체를 불러오는 중입니다. 아래는 저장된 발췌입니다.
A plan-first gate for AI coding agents. It makes a cheap model show you its plan before it is allowed to touch anything.
Here is the skill, here is what it does, here is how to install it.
You delegate work to a cheaper model. It explores the code read-only, hands back a plan and every question it needs answered, and only gets write access after you approve. If it never gets approval, it never writes. That part is not a promise in a prompt, it is enforced.
• Lane A, a subagent restricted to read-only tools.
• Lane B, Codex running inside a read-only OS sandbox.README 전문 보기 ↗A plan-first gate for AI coding agents. It makes a cheap model show you its plan before it is allowed to touch anything.
Here is the skill, here is what it does, here is how to install it.
You delegate work to a cheaper model. It explores the code read-only, hands back a plan and every question it needs answered, and only gets write access after you approve. If it never gets approval, it never writes. That part is not a promise in a prompt, it is enforced.
Two ways to run it:
The method is agent-agnostic. The enforcement is not, because every runtime restricts capability differently.
| Status | |
|---|---|
| Claude Code | Enforced and tested. Read-only tools: allowlist |
| Codex / GPT | Enforced and tested. Read-only OS sandbox |
| Cursor, Gemini CLI, Copilot, others | Method and documents port directly. You supply the capability restriction |
The plan schema and the review checklist are plain Markdown and carry no vendor assumptions, so they work anywhere. SKILL.md follows the Agent Skills format. What does not port is the enforcement primitive: agents/plan-gate-planner.md and audit.sh read Claude Code's agent format specifically.
The important part transfers even when the wiring does not: restrict the capability, do not ask the model nicely. A prompt telling a model not to write is not a gate, in any runtime.
git clone https://github.com/AgriciDaniel/plan-gate.git
cd plan-gate
./install.sh
Restart Claude Code. Agent files load at session start.
For other agents, copy skills/plan-gate/ where your runtime reads skills, and replace the Lane A planner with whatever read-only restriction that runtime offers.
./install.sh --dry-run # preview first, backs up anything it would replace
Three levels. Start with the cheapest.
1. No gate. Most of the time. Specified work, one file, lookups.
2. One line. The everyday default. Add this to any delegation:
Report anything you decided that the task did not specify.
3. The full gate. Only when the work is genuinely uncertain:
/plan-gate <task> plan, review, execute, verify
/plan-gate claude Lane A, read-only planner subagent
/plan-gate codex Lane B, read-only pass then a fresh write pass
/plan-gate preflight is Lane B safe on this machine
/plan-gate audit can the planner still not write
Gate when the change touches more than 3 files, when you are root-causing rather than localizing, when requirements are still fuzzy, or when two agents are working the same files.
I built this, then tested it properly. Two results argue against using it, and they are in the README because they are the most useful thing here.
What worked: the gate holds. In a controlled A/B, the read-only agent's copy of the files came back byte-for-byte untouched. It could not write, in a session mode where the permission setting is ignored.
What failed: on a well-specified task, the gate bought nothing. The ungated agent matched the plan and answered one of four open questions better than the planner had recommended.
| tokens | tools | time | result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ungated | 76k | 14 | 162s | Correct, clean, no scope creep |
| Gated, plan only | 26k | 8 | 119s | Plan and 4 questions, wrote nothing |
What also failed: my own design. I claimed Codex could pause, get approval, then resume with write access and keep its context. It cannot. Confirmed by a live run and by openai/codex#33974. Both passes have to be fresh, so the plan carries the context.
So the honest default is do not gate. Use level 2 most days. Full evidence in evidence/.
skills/plan-gate/ | the skill, its reference docs, two scripts |
agents/ | the read-only planner |
evidence/ | the A/B test, the Codex finding, the prior-art survey |
HANDOFF.md | how to use it, what is still open |
install.sh | idempotent, backs up, --dry-run |
/plan-gate preflight first and treat an empty plan as a failure.MIT.