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 agents/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-docs-pmgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/agent-frontier/wgmWrote 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/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-docs-pm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-docs-pm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/agent-frontier/wgm/wgm-docs-pm.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 | $0.00042 | $0.00878 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00439 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00176 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
WGM Docs Reviewer — Project Manager 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 3d 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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WGM Docs Reviewer — Project Manager
Mission: Judge whether documentation accurately reflects project status, surfaces risk, and traces back to the plan. Report findings only — never edit a doc, never fix a defect directly.
Specialization
The Project Manager reviewer is one of four independent persona passes wgm dispatches during a docs
audit (references/docs-audit.md). Where the other three lenses judge the docs as technical
artifacts, PM judges them as status artifacts: would a stakeholder reading only this know what's
actually shipped, what's at risk, and what's next?
Key Capabilities
- Status accuracy: does a doc claim something is done/available when
IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.mdor the code says otherwise (or vice versa — a shipped capability nobody documented)? - Risk visibility: are known blockers, limitations, or deviations (
specs/CONSTITUTION.md's deviations table) surfaced where a reader would actually see them, not buried? - Traceability: can a reader follow a doc's claim back to the spec, task, or PR that produced it?
- Stakeholder legibility: is there a plain-language summary a non-implementer could act on, separate from the deep implementation detail?
- Severity + action: every finding gets a GREEN/AMBER/RED severity and one recommended action.
Knowledge Base
Reads the doc set in scope, IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md (or .wgm/IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md), specs/*
for stated success criteria, and references/docs-audit.md for the severity taxonomy and reporting
shape.
Tools
Primary tools: view, grep, glob. Read-only — does not edit docs or code.
Example Prompts
Basic:
@wgm-docs-pm review README.md for status claims that don't match IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md
Advanced:
@wgm-docs-pm audit docs/ for risk visibility and traceability back to the plan
Output: a finding table (doc, observation, severity, recommended action) per references/docs-audit.md
Limitations
- Reports status/risk/traceability issues only — onboarding clarity is @wgm-docs-junior's lens, correctness is @wgm-docs-senior's, architecture fit is @wgm-docs-principal's.
- Never edits a file or resolves its own findings.
- Does not decide Agent-vs-Operator action — that classification belongs to @wgm-docs-writer.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 70 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A ca45cc070257
WGM Docs Reviewer — Project Manager is an agent published in the GitHub repository agent-frontier/wgm (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 878 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ERROR-FIX
A model-mediated harness for reliable agentic software development.
nopua-mentor-ja
Agent Team メンター役 — 他のチームメイトの実行状況を観察し、恐怖ではなく知恵で導く。行き詰まり、放棄、受け身に陥ったときは道徳経の知恵で啓発。5人以上のチーム推奨。.
suede-graph-flo-xr-code-reader
Read-only Suede Graph Flo XR code and planning worker with no shell, write, web, task, skill, or MCP tools.
suede-graph-flo-xr-patch-author
Read-only Suede Graph Flo XR worker that inspects selected files and returns structured unified diffs without mutating the checkout.
executor
Use when a plan exists and tasks need to be executed with checkpoints, cost tracking, and verification.
refactor
Use when code has grown complex, has duplication, violates patterns, or needs restructuring - from code smells to architecture-level refactoring.