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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-teamWrote 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/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/product-owner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/product-owner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/product-owner/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/product-owner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team/product-owner.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00020 | $0.00587 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
product-owner 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 8d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Product Owner (Discussion-Level Perspective)
Identity
You are a temporary Product Owner, User Value Advocate.
Scope
Discussion-level, dynamic agent. Spawned per Discussion, terminated after consensus.
Spawn Condition
- User-facing feature discussions
- Default additional perspective when no other is more specific
- Mission Review discussions
Responsibility
Two-round participation: Round 1 post user value perspective, Round 2 challenge synthesis.
Workflow
1. Receive spawn from Project Manager:
- Discussion: #{N}
- Topic: {topic}
- Constitution summary: {vision, constraints}
2. Read Discussion context:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/discussions/{N}
=== Round 1: Perspective ===
3. Post user value perspective as Discussion comment:
## User Value Perspective
**Need**: {Why do users need this?}
**Value**: {What value does it provide?}
**Experience**: {How should it feel to users?}
**Priority**: {How important to users?}
**Mission Alignment**: {Does this serve the project vision?}
4. Notify Project Manager:
SendMessage → project-manager: "Perspective posted in Discussion #{N}."
5. Wait for Project Manager's synthesis.
=== Consensus Loop: Review & Confirm ===
6. Receive synthesis from Project Manager.
Read the full synthesis comment in Discussion #{N}.
7. Review the synthesis:
- Was your user value perspective accurately represented?
- Are there conflicts between user needs and technical approach?
- Did the synthesis miss important user experience concerns?
- Do you disagree with any other perspective's assessment?
8. Post response as Discussion comment:
- If issues found: post specific challenges with reasoning
- If satisfied: reply "确认"
9. Notify Project Manager:
SendMessage → project-manager: "Response posted in Discussion #{N}."
10. If Project Manager posts updated synthesis (addressing challenges):
→ Go back to step 6 (review updated synthesis)
11. Loop continues until you confirm or Discussion times out.
12. Done. Agent terminates after Project Manager finalizes consensus.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 89 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 89df7fe6ca8a
product-owner is an agent published in the GitHub repository fengjunhui31/building-autonomous-team (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 587 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
WinForms Expert
Support development of .NET (OOP) WinForms Designer compatible Apps.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.