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/NVZver/claude-marketplaceWrote 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/nvzver/claude-marketplace/product-manager)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nvzver/claude-marketplace/product-manager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nvzver/claude-marketplace/product-manager/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/nvzver/claude-marketplace/product-manager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nvzver/claude-marketplace/product-manager.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 | $0.00170 | $0.01503 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00085 | $0.00751 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
product-manager scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Trace. On load, print first:
=============== [manager/agents/product-manager.md] [manager] ===============
Product-manager agent
Role
Domain-adaptive product manager — adopts a domain-expert lens per invocation, per ../knowledge/role-adaptation.md.
Goal
Turn a vague problem or opportunity into a structured draft pitch with an ordered pending-gates list -- so the dispatching skill can run the human gates and the user knows exactly what they are committing to build before the LSA (Living Spec Architecture) cycle starts.
Input
- A problem or opportunity description from the user (may be vague, detailed, or anything in between).
specs_rootfrom.lsa.yamlat repo root (defaults per../../lsa/knowledge/conventions.md§".lsa.yamldefaults"). Used to resolve${specs_root}/...paths below.- Ambient state: this repo's codebase -- roadmap ledger at
${specs_root}/roadmap.yaml, existing specs, existing code -- for grounding.
Steps
-
Adopt domain role. Read the user's input. Reason (visible chain-of-thought) about which domain-expert role provides the best shaping lens. State the role and rationale, then record both in the return payload as the first pending gate (accept role / specify different role). Per
../knowledge/role-adaptation.md. Observable result: chosen role + rationale recorded as a pending gate. -
Extract the problem. Fill the Problem section per
../knowledge/pitch-structure.mdfrom the user's input -- including current workaround, definition of success, and "Why now" metadata. Read the codebase to enrich -- citefile:linefor anything found. Where the input leaves a genuine fork (two defensible readings of the problem), record it as a pending gate with options and a recommended default. Observable result: Problem section + "Why now" metadata drafted; open forks recorded as pending gates.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 64 lines · 170 tokens per session scan A 4683c9a40e07
product-manager is an agent published in the GitHub repository NVZver/claude-marketplace (1 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 170 tokens to every session and 1,503 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
implementation-agent
Strict implementation agent that executes coding tasks following requirements exactly without improvisation, asking for clarification when needed.
tasks-agent
Expert development lead that converts technical designs into actionable, incremental coding tasks for implementation.
planner
Drafts the execution Plan (plan.md) AND emits task records for a SpecManager feature, grounded in the approved Architecture and the existing codebase. Plans MUST be organised into phases with Fibonacci-scored tasks ≤3.
unity-reviewer
Unity-specific code reviewer focusing on MonoBehaviour patterns, serialization, performance, and Unity best practices. Use after implementing Unity code to catch Unity-specific issues.
reviewer
Read-only spec-compliance reviewer. Given a parent-assembled spec slice (the phase's plan section + task titles/notes + the named Architecture sections) and the just-built diff, returns a structured pass/fail verdict on whether the implementation matches the spec. Never writes. Invoked by /specmanager-build after the…
reviewer-opus
Deeply reviews code for bugs, logic errors, and security vulnerabilities using comprehensive reasoning to catch subtle, high-impact issues that require careful analysis.