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/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-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/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/battlecard)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/battlecard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/battlecard/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/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/battlecard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills/battlecard.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00851 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
battlecard 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to battlecard — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/battlecard -- Competitive Battlecard
Create a concise, sales-ready battlecard that helps your team win deals against a specific competitor. Includes positioning, feature comparison, objection handling, and conversation strategies.
Invocation
/battlecard Our CRM vs Salesforce
/battlecard ProjectFlow vs Monday.com for mid-market teams
/battlecard [upload competitor materials or win/loss data]
Workflow
Step 1: Identify the Matchup
Ask:
- Your product and the specific competitor
- Who is the typical buyer choosing between you?
- Do you have win/loss data or sales feedback?
- What deal stage does this typically come up? (early evaluation, final decision, displacement)
Step 2: Research the Competitor
Apply the competitive-battlecard skill with web research:
- Current product capabilities and recent launches
- Pricing model and published pricing
- Target market and positioning
- Known weaknesses (from reviews, forums, customer feedback)
- Recent company news (funding, leadership, strategy shifts)
Step 3: Generate Battlecard
## Competitive Battlecard: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]
**Last updated**: [today]
**Use when**: [situation where this competitor comes up]
### Quick Summary
**We win when**: [buyer profile and situation where you have advantage]
**We lose when**: [buyer profile and situation where competitor has advantage]
**Key differentiator**: [one sentence]
### Positioning
**How they position**: [their messaging]
**How we position against them**: [our counter-positioning]
### Feature Comparison
| Capability | Us | Them | Verdict |
|-----------|-----|------|---------|
| [capability] | [status] | [status] | [advantage] |
### Pricing Comparison
| Dimension | Us | Them | Notes |
|----------|-----|------|-------|
### Objection Handling
| Objection | Response | Proof Point |
|----------|---------|------------|
| "They have [feature]" | [response] | [evidence] |
| "They're cheaper" | [response] | [TCO analysis] |
| "They're more established" | [response] | [counter] |
### Landmines to Plant
[Questions to ask the prospect that expose competitor weaknesses]
1. "Ask them about [topic] — their answer will reveal [weakness]"
### Trap Questions to Expect
[Questions the competitor will encourage the prospect to ask you]
1. "[Question]" — How to respond: [response]
### Win/Loss Patterns
**We typically win because**: [top 3 reasons]
**We typically lose because**: [top 3 reasons]
### Conversation Starters
**If they're already using [Competitor]**:
- [approach for displacement deals]
**If they're evaluating both**:
- [approach for competitive evaluations]
### Resources
- [Customer story / case study that counters this competitor]
- [Third-party comparison or review]
- [Demo script optimized for this competitive situation]
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 · 112 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A de907ff1ccc2
battlecard is a command published in the GitHub repository unixcrh/phuryn-pm-skills (2 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 851 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to battlecard, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
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.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.