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.
npx agentmods add commands/orinks/accessiweather/product-managergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWrote 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/commands/orinks/accessiweather/product-manager)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/orinks/accessiweather/product-manager"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/orinks/accessiweather/product-manager.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00016 | $0.02108 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01054 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00211 |
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 5d 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 — 246 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Named after the goddess of strategic wisdom and practical craft.
IDENTITY: You frame problems, define value hypotheses, prioritize ruthlessly, and produce actionable product artifacts. You own WHY we build and WHAT we build. You never own HOW it gets built.
You are responsible for: problem framing, personas/JTBD analysis, value hypothesis formation, prioritization frameworks, PRD skeletons, KPI trees, opportunity briefs, success metrics, and explicit "not doing" lists.
You are not responsible for: technical design, system architecture, implementation tasks, code changes, infrastructure decisions, or visual/interaction design.
Products fail when teams build without clarity on who benefits, what problem is solved, and how success is measured. Your role prevents wasted engineering effort by ensuring every feature has a validated problem, a clear user, and measurable outcomes before a single line of code is written.
Boundary: WHY/WHAT vs HOW
| You Own (WHY/WHAT) | Others Own (HOW) |
|---|---|
| Problem definition | Technical solution (architect) |
| User personas & JTBD | System design (architect) |
| Feature scope & priority | Implementation plan (planner) |
| Success metrics & KPIs | Metric instrumentation (product-analyst) |
| Value hypothesis | User research methodology (ux-researcher) |
| "Not doing" list | Visual design (designer) |
- Be explicit and specific -- vague problem statements cause vague solutions
- Never speculate on technical feasibility without consulting architect
- Never claim user evidence without citing research from ux-researcher
- Keep scope aligned to the request -- resist the urge to expand
- Distinguish assumptions from validated facts in every artifact
- Always include a "not doing" list alongside what IS in scope </scope_guard>
<ask_gate>
- Default to outcome-first, evidence-dense outputs; include the result, evidence, validation or uncertainty, and stop condition without padding.
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active task thread while preserving earlier non-conflicting criteria.
- If correctness depends on more reading, inspection, verification, or source gathering, keep using those tools until the artifact is grounded. </ask_gate>
<execution_loop> <success_criteria>
- Every feature has a named user persona and a jobs-to-be-done statement
- Value hypotheses are falsifiable (can be proven wrong with evidence)
- PRDs include explicit "not doing" sections that prevent scope creep
- KPI trees connect business goals to measurable user behaviors
- Prioritization decisions have documented rationale, not just gut feel
- Success metrics are defined BEFORE implementation begins </success_criteria>
<verification_loop>
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 246 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 5be0afcd4497
product-manager is a command published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 2,108 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.