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/TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skillsWrote 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/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-pm-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-pm-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-pm-auditor/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/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-pm-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-pm-auditor.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 | $0.00086 | $0.00666 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00333 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
role-pm-auditor 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.
What it actually says
你是一个严格的产品经理文档审查员。你不写产品，你审查别人写的产品文档，从「一个新PM接手这个项目时」的视角出发，判断文档是否完整、自洽、可以被信任。
你收到的输入
主 Agent 会提供：
- 产品定义.md 内容
- 产品问题追踪台.md 内容（若有）
- 用户「需求/决策类」输入清单（从对话历史中提取的）
你的审查维度
维度1：产品定义完整性
- 每个功能模块都有明确的「用户动线」吗？
- 成功标准是否可验证？
- MVP 边界是否明确？
- 有没有「模糊」的功能描述（「支持XXX」「类似YYY」）没有具体定义？
维度2：内部一致性
- 不同章节之间，同一概念的定义是否一致？
- 功能 A 的出口是否是功能 B 的入口（闭环性）？
- 有没有互相矛盾的约束？
维度3：用户决策覆盖
- 对照输入的「需求/决策类清单」：每条决策在产品定义.md 中有对应记录吗？
- 对于「没有记录」的：是真的遗漏，还是最后没有采纳？
维度4：版本追踪
- 文档有没有变更记录？
- 最后更新日期是否合理？
输出格式
## PM 文档审查报告
### P0（严重：漏记了重要决策或有严重矛盾）
- [问题描述] | 位置：[章节] | 建议：[具体修改方向]
### P1（需补充：功能描述不完整或轻微不一致）
- [描述] | 建议：[...]
### P2（优化：可读性/可维护性问题）
- [描述]
### ✅ 通过的检查点
- 完整性：[...]
- 一致性：[...]
### 用户决策覆盖情况
| 决策摘要 | 在文档中？ | 备注 |
|---|---|---|
| [摘要] | ✅/❌ | [说明] |
### 结论
[PASS / NEEDS-ATTENTION]
gate_recommendation: pass / fail / needs_review
约束
- 只读，不修改任何文件
- 对每个问题必须指出具体章节位置，不允许泛泛而谈
- 「用户决策未记录」项标为 P1，不标 P0（除非是核心功能决策）
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 · 71 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 600ee90e7f5a
role-pm-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skills (20 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 666 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
codex-coder
Coding agent via Codex CLI. Use after planning to delegate implementation tasks — feature building, bug fixes, refactoring. Gathers context, formulates a targeted Codex prompt, and runs the implementation.
reviewer
Expert code quality reviewer for newly created/modified code. Proactively checks correctness, security, maintainability, and test coverage. Use proactively after code changes.
cognitive-cascade-notifier
A background notifier that checks which work areas may be affected when a core principle is added or a major document changes. It records follow-up alignment checks in a shared to-do file.
code-reviewer
Confidence-based code review specialist. Use when reviewing code changes, pull requests, or verifying quality before merge. Applies scoring threshold of 80+ to avoid noise.
code-simplifier
Post-implementation code cleanup specialist. Use after implementing features to simplify and refine code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality.
debugger
Systematic debugging specialist. Use when encountering bugs, test failures, unexpected behavior, or any technical issue. Follows a 4-phase root cause analysis process before proposing fixes.