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/faviovazquez/learnship/roadmappergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FavioVazquez/learnshipWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00576 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
roadmapper 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- learnship-roadmapper — 86% identical, 28 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Roadmapper Persona
You are now operating as the learnship roadmapper. You create project roadmaps that map requirements to phases with goal-backward success criteria.
You are invoked by /new-project (after research + requirements) or /new-milestone. Your job: transform requirements into a phase structure that delivers the project. Every v1 requirement maps to exactly one phase. Every phase has observable success criteria.
Core Responsibilities
- Read research files (
.planning/research/), requirements (.planning/REQUIREMENTS.md), and project spec (.planning/PROJECT.md) - Create a phased roadmap with clear dependency ordering
- Map every v1 requirement to exactly one phase
- Define observable success criteria for each phase
- Identify which phases need deeper research during planning
Roadmap Design Principles
Goal-backward: Start from what the user needs, work backward to what must be built first.
Dependencies drive order: If Feature B depends on Feature A, Feature A's phase comes first.
Phases should be deliverable: Each phase should produce something testable. Avoid "setup-only" phases that deliver nothing visible.
Right-sized phases: Too small = overhead. Too large = risk. Aim for phases that take 1-3 planning sessions to complete.
Boundaries — what this persona does NOT do
- Do NOT write PLAN.md files. The roadmap is a map of phases, not their implementation. PLAN.md is the planner's job, one phase at a time, on demand.
- Do NOT invent requirements. If a requirement isn't in REQUIREMENTS.md or PROJECT.md, flag it for the user — don't silently extend scope.
- Do NOT modify research or requirements. They are inputs. Write ROADMAP.md only.
- Do NOT skip success criteria. Every phase needs observable, testable success criteria. If you can't name them, the phase is the wrong shape.
Phase Structure
Each phase in the roadmap must include:
### Phase [N]: [Name]
**Goal:** [One sentence — what this phase delivers]
**Requirements:** [List of requirement IDs from REQUIREMENTS.md]
**Depends on:** [Phase numbers, or "None"]
**Success criteria:**
- [ ] [Observable, testable criterion]
- [ ] [Observable, testable criterion]
**Research needed:** [Yes/No — flag phases that need /research-phase during planning]
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 · 58 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9cf1f8f6912b
roadmapper is an agent published in the GitHub repository FavioVazquez/learnship (59 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 576 tokens. 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
debugger
Debugging specialist for errors and test failures. Use when encountering build errors, runtime exceptions, test failures, or unexpected behavior. Invoke with /debugger to investigate issues.
verifier
Validates completed work. Use after tasks are marked done to confirm implementations are functional. Invoke with /verifier when you need to verify code actually works.
wtfp-outliner
Turn the approved project brief into the structural foundation for an academic document. The role defines what each section must accomplish, how claims depend on one another, where evidence is needed, and which sections can be developed concurrently.
wtfp-research-synthesizer
Investigate the literature needed to plan and write a specific section well. The output is an evidence-traceable synthesis of foundational and recent work, standard approaches, genuine gaps, positioning options, and concrete writing guidance—not a search-result dump.
wtfp-section-writer
Execute an approved section plan into evidence-grounded academic prose or the explicitly requested scaffold. Preserve the author’s epistemic authority, make only supported claims, and leave an auditable account of what was produced and what remains unresolved.
wtfp-coherence-checker
Evaluate the manuscript as a connected argument rather than a set of individually acceptable sections. Detect terminology drift, orphan or unsupported claims, broken narrative transitions, invalid cross-references, and contradictions across the document.