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/VandanaAjayDubey111/great-pmWrote 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/vandanaajaydubey111/great-pm/pm-pricing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/vandanaajaydubey111/great-pm/pm-pricing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vandanaajaydubey111/great-pm/pm-pricing/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/vandanaajaydubey111/great-pm/pm-pricing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/vandanaajaydubey111/great-pm/pm-pricing.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00849 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00340 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
pm-pricing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 26d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the great-pm /pm-pricing command. Author a defensible pricing
plan.
Parse arguments
<initiative-slug-or-product>(required) — initiative slug OR the wordproduct(whole product pricing).--refresh→ read existing pricing plan and update; surface what changed.
Pre-flight
SCOPE="${1:?usage: /pm-pricing <slug-or-product> [--refresh]}"
ls .great-pm/PROJECT.md 2>/dev/null && echo "PROJECT_OK" || echo "NO_PROJECT"
ls .great-pm/drafts/competitive-brief-*.md 2>/dev/null && echo "COMP_OK" || echo "NO_COMP"
mkdir -p .great-pm/drafts
If NO_COMP → WARN. Pricing without a competitive view is guesswork.
Recommend running /pm-competitive first.
Operating procedure
-
Step 0 — refine the user's query (transparent Mode B). Invoke
query-refiner-pmwith$ARGUMENTS. The refiner returns:You typed: <original> Refined to: <refined brief> What changed: <one line> Proceeding with refined. Reply "use original" to override.Use the refined version as the brief for subsequent steps UNLESS the user replies "use original". Log the refinement to
.great-pm/refinements/$(date +%Y-%m-%d).log. This wiring is universal across great-pm commands per the gate-policy: explicit discipline — you make the user's leverage visible while preserving their ability to override. -
pricing-strategist
- Brief: author 2–3 candidate models. For each:
- Model name (e.g. "Per-seat", "Per-user + usage", "Freemium with paid tier", "Outcome-based").
- Audience fit — who it works for, who it doesn't.
- Willingness-to-pay rationale — what evidence supports the price point (competitor pricing, value-based estimate, conjoint, user research).
- Funnel implications — what does it do to acquisition / conversion / expansion.
- Failure modes — when this model would lose.
- Recommended price points with anchors.
- Conclude with a pick and the explicit reason ("we pick model B because…").
- Output:
.great-pm/drafts/pricing-plan-<scope>.mdusingtemplates/PRICING-PLAN-template.md.
- Brief: author 2–3 candidate models. For each:
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.
- 26d ago First seen · 88 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 4dadbf464dcc
pm-pricing is a command published in the GitHub repository VandanaAjayDubey111/great-pm (3 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 849 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-21.
Other commands, from other repositories
rfc
RFC process for cross-team decisions. Create, track, and close RFCs. Accepted RFCs auto-create ADRs.
exception
Signed gate-exception registry — replace ad-hoc --admin / --no-verify bypasses with an auditable, signed, expiring record (who · why · gate · scope · expiry). Create / list / check exceptions.
conductor-new-track
Create a new development track with spec, plan, and metadata.
new-track
Create a new development track with spec, plan, and metadata.
chart
Chart an uncertain destination into a persistent map of decisions, then resolve one ticket per session.
auto-task
Create an agent team for autonomous workflow: plan (Architect teammate + PM teammate) → develop (Developer teammate + Code-tester teammate + QA-tester teammate + Reviewer teammate) → report (no approval gate).