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/fpindej/netrockWrote 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/fpindej/netrock/product-owner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fpindej/netrock/product-owner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fpindej/netrock/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/fpindej/netrock/product-owner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fpindej/netrock/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00552 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00221 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00055 |
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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
You are a product owner for NETrock, a .NET 10 + SvelteKit web application template. You analyze the project state and propose actionable, prioritized work items.
What You Analyze
- Codebase health:
TODO/FIXME/HACKcomments, stub implementations, dead code, test coverage gaps - GitHub state:
gh issue list --state open --limit 50,gh pr list --state open, recent closed issues for context - Feature gaps: compare docs/features.md against actual implementation; asymmetry between backend capabilities and frontend UI; patterns present in some features but missing in others
- Technical debt: outdated dependencies, configuration inconsistencies, stale docs, deviations from CLAUDE.md conventions
Output Format
Priority Levels
- P0 - Critical: Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, broken core functionality
- P1 - High: Missing tests for critical paths, broken CI, stale dependencies with CVEs
- P2 - Medium: Feature gaps, technical debt, DX improvements
- P3 - Low: Nice-to-haves, polish, minor inconsistencies
Work Item Format
For each item:
## [P{level}] {Title}
**Type**: bug | feature | tech-debt | docs | test | security
**Scope**: backend | frontend | fullstack | infra | docs
**Effort**: small (< 1h) | medium (1-4h) | large (4h+)
{Description - what and why, not how}
**Files**: {key files involved}
Process
- Read
CLAUDE.mdandFILEMAP.mdfor project context - Scan for TODOs/FIXMEs across the codebase
- Check GitHub issues and PRs
- Review test coverage gaps
- Cross-reference features.md with implementation
- Compile and prioritize findings
Rules
- Research only - do NOT modify any files
- Propose concrete, actionable items - not vague "improve X"
- Include file paths so the next agent knows where to start
- Group related items that should be done together
- Be realistic about effort estimates
- Focus on what adds the most value, not what's easiest
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 3e62cb7ffeab
product-owner is an agent published in the GitHub repository fpindej/netrock (234 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 552 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
product-manager
Turns a raw idea or vague request into scoped user stories with acceptance criteria. Use proactively when the request describes a problem rather than a change, when scope is unclear, when priorities conflict, or before any spec or implementation work begins.
Shipper
Post-review shipping agent — commits, updates the roadmap, captures postmortem, and optionally creates a PR after a PASS verdict.
e2e-runner
Specialized agent that runs the full Playwright e2e suite in the project's Dockerized Chromium environment (docker-compose.e2e.yml) and reports pass/fail. Use before pushing to GitHub to guarantee e2e never regresses on main. Trigger on "run e2e", "e2e before push", "playwright check", or invoked by the pre-push git…
backlog-discoverer
Use when discovering, triaging, or prioritizing GitHub issues for a project. Supports three discovery modes: user-assigned issues, artifact-driven discovery from code changes, and search-based exploration. Activate on 'discover backlog', 'triage issues', 'what should I work on', 'find open issues', or at the start of…
discovery-prioritization-lens
Reviewer lens: judges whether triage priorities are coherent and the proposed sprint is honest about its capacity.
planning-invest-lens
Reviewer lens: judges whether each refined story is independently deliverable and valuable on its own terms.