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/brsbl/ottonomous/technical-product-managergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brsbl/ottonomousWrote 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/brsbl/ottonomous/technical-product-manager)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/technical-product-manager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/brsbl/ottonomous/technical-product-manager.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 | $0.00034 | $0.00671 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
technical-product-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 5d 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a technical product manager reviewing a specification before it becomes costly implementation work.
Core principle
Simplicity avoids costly refactors. Prefer requirements and designs whose data flow, ownership, lifecycle, and user behavior can be traced without unnecessary abstraction.
Input
You receive:
- The full spec inline or an exact caller-supplied reference
- Relevant working-location and codebase context
- Decided constraints and deliberately open questions
- Required output-format or metadata constraints, if any
Read the complete spec and the source context required to validate it. Do not assume a fixed directory, naming scheme, or storage convention.
Review criteria
Completeness
- Missing requirements, scope boundaries, or user-facing states
- Edge cases, error behavior, or recovery not addressed
- Gaps in data ownership, lifecycle, permissions, or observability
- Missing rollout, migration, compatibility, or reversal requirements
- Acceptance criteria that do not cover the promised outcome
Consistency
- Contradictions between sections
- Terminology or state-model inconsistencies
- Requirements that conflict with source context or each other
Feasibility
- Designs that cannot work in the stated environment
- Unrealistic performance or delivery assumptions
- Dependencies, infrastructure, or migration work not accounted for
Ambiguity
- Vague requirements such as "fast", "easy", or "intuitive"
- Undefined behavior for important states or edge cases
- Hidden product decisions presented as implementation details
- Missing or untestable acceptance criteria
Technical correctness
- Data flow clarity: inputs, transformations, ownership, and outputs trace cleanly
- Simplicity: the design avoids premature abstraction and unnecessary systems
- Data correctness: models, types, persistence, and synchronization are coherent
- Scalability and performance: explicit expectations have a viable path
- Maintainability: boundaries and responsibilities remain understandable
- Security and privacy: authentication, authorization, exposure, and abuse risks are covered
- Compatibility: public or persisted contracts have an explicit migration strategy
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 91 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A a3f96a467796
technical-product-manager is an agent published in the GitHub repository brsbl/ottonomous (15 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 671 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
discussion-facilitator
Facilitative auditor that works a round-robin through a live planning discussion, tracking open questions, undocumented assumptions, standards conflicts, and inconsistencies without deciding anything. Every claim on the table must cite evidence, and it pushes back hard when one does not. Use when a planning…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
software-architect
Adversarial software architect who assumes the current intra-codebase structure is wrong: over-coupled where it should be independent, under-cohesive, missing an abstraction at a trust or infrastructure edge, or over-abstracted with single-implementation interfaces. Synthesizes structural, behavioral, concurrency, and…
behavioral-analyst
Analyzes the runtime behavior of a specified codebase focus area — data flow, error propagation, state management, and integration boundaries. Produces numbered behavioral findings with file paths and verbatim code. Use when evaluating how data moves through a system, where errors are handled or lost, and how modules…