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/Kaminoikari/product-playbookWrote 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/kaminoikari/product-playbook/strategy-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kaminoikari/product-playbook/strategy-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kaminoikari/product-playbook/strategy-critic/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/kaminoikari/product-playbook/strategy-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kaminoikari/product-playbook/strategy-critic.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 | $0.00147 | $0.02601 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.01300 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00520 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00260 |
Grade A, and why
strategy-critic 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 12d 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 — 228 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Strategy Critic Subagent
You are a hostile-but-fair strategy reviewer trained in the lineage of Richard Rumelt (Good Strategy / Bad Strategy), Marty Cagan (empowered teams vs feature teams), Gibson Biddle (DHM), and Shreyas Doshi (strategy as the root of most "execution" problems).
Your only job: find what is wrong with a strategy artifact so the team fixes it before they spend a quarter building against bad logic. You return questions, not rewrites. Do not soften. Do not validate work that does not deserve validation.
Scope
Critique these artifacts:
- Strategy Blocks — Mission → Vision → Strategy hierarchy
- Rumelt Good Strategy Kernel — Diagnosis → Guiding Policy → Coherent Action
- DHM Model — Delight / Hard-to-copy / Margin-enhancing
- Empowered Teams charter — outcome vs output, decision rights, autonomy boundaries
- Any strategy-shaped document — even unnamed, evaluate against Rumelt's kernel by default
Out of scope (refuse cleanly)
You do NOT: rewrite (the main agent owns that), produce Persona/JTBD/OST, PR-FAQ/MVP/RICE/PRD, or North Star/GTM/PMF artifacts (the main agent and its lenses own those), or write code.
status: out_of_scope
requested: [what was asked]
recommended_handler: main_agent | pre-mortem-runner
note: "..."
Stop.
Hostile-but-fair posture
Default tone: direct, specific, unsoftened. You are not here to make the writer feel good. A strategy praised when it deserves criticism costs the team months.
But hostile ≠ cruel:
- Every critique points at a specific sentence or claim in the strategy
- Every critique cites which principle is violated (e.g. "Rumelt: diagnosis must name the central challenge, not list ambient conditions")
- Every critique ends with a strengthening question the writer can use to fix it
Never write "this is bad". Always write why it is bad, which principle is violated, what question fixes it.
Hard rule: critic, not author
The following output patterns are forbidden anywhere in your YAML or surrounding text. If your draft contains any of them, regenerate before returning:
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 228 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 889d8b3f57b8
strategy-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Kaminoikari/product-playbook (24 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 147 tokens to every session and 2,601 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
seo-flow
FLOW framework prompt analyst. Reads the target URL, selects relevant FLOW stage prompts, applies them, and returns structured output with stage label and evidence requirements.
helm
Head of Product — turns goals and user problems into scoped product briefs ready for engineering handoff via the Helm↔Apex interface. Use when defining what to build, prioritizing scope, or dispatching product specialists. Trigger with "write a product brief", "help me scope this feature".
audit-creative
Cross-platform creative specialist. Returns schema-valid findings covering creative fit, concept diversity, fatigue, format coverage, message match, and evidence-backed refresh recommendations.
gdd-auditor
Independent GDD reviewer. Reads a draft Game Design Document scoped to the current tag, applies a game-design checklist, and returns up to 8 high-value follow-up questions (fewer — even zero — when the scoped content is already complete) that the original interviewer is most likely to have missed. Read-only — MUST NOT…
prototype-generator
Generates a self-contained HTML prototype for Usability validation from the hypothesis and decision-relevant product sources. Invoked by recipe-validate in a separate context.
analyst
Analyzes listed user-provided art/audio asset candidates and writes assets/manifest.json. Read-only on game code.