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/wei63w/pm-managerWrote 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/wei63w/pm-manager/checkup)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wei63w/pm-manager/checkup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wei63w/pm-manager/checkup/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/wei63w/pm-manager/checkup"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wei63w/pm-manager/checkup.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00339 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00136 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00034 |
Grade A, and why
checkup 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 1mo 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 pm-checkup — 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.
What it actually says
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Accepted: empty | --module <name>.
Outline
/pm-checkup 是按需全量体检，不是日常口令，也不是 /pm-all 默认步骤。用户以中文交互时用中文回复。不启动定时器。未确认不改业务代码。
- Require
.pm/。缺则建议/pm-init。 - 先读
map.json、doc-index.md、rules.md。禁止无过滤全库递归。 - 运行
pm checkup（或--module）。打开.pm/state/checkup.md。 - P0 置顶打断；P1/P2 只汇总。可建议
/pm-review把 P0 收成带推理的评审行。 - Closing：
_closing.md完整档，只链已有 checkup / overview。
Done When
- 五维报告已刷新
- 未把体检绑进日常 status 默认深潜
- 无秘密原文落盘
Shared Workflow
Map-first. Redact. Confirm-before-write. Design baseline: docs/prd.md + 宪章。
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 37 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 90ed122ffa8f
checkup is a command published in the GitHub repository wei63w/pm-manager (88 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 339 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to pm-checkup, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Improve existing code: strip slop, safe refactor, tech-debt register, perf, structure review, or stack modernization.
bug
Turn a description of something broken into a GitHub issue of type Bug. Drafts a structured report, previews it, and files it only after you confirm — typed Bug where the repo supports issue types, otherwise labelled bug.
fix-ci
Diagnose failing GitHub Actions checks on a PR from the logs and fix the root cause.
qa
Structured verification pass on your changes before commit: bugs, missed requirements, wrong assumptions.
debug
Start systematic debugging methodology for investigating bugs and errors.
secure-flow-security-remediation
Run a security remediation task that checks for vulnerabilities in the codebase and applies necessary fixes. Scan the codebase for vulnerabilities using Trivy and attempt to fix up to 3 vulnerabilities of the highest impact.