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 skills/cwinvestments/memstack/mvp-scopernpx skills add cwinvestments/memstack --skill mvp-scopergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cwinvestments/memstackWrote 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/skills/cwinvestments/memstack/mvp-scoper)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cwinvestments/memstack/mvp-scoper"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cwinvestments/memstack/mvp-scoper.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 | $0.00065 | $0.02506 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01253 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00501 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00251 |
Grade A, and why
memstack-product-mvp-scoper 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 yesterday.
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 — 289 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MVP Scoper: Scoping minimum viable product...
Defines the smallest buildable product that validates a core hypothesis using feature triage, effort/impact scoring, a 2-week sprint scope, and success criteria.
Activation
When this skill activates, output:
MVP Scoper: Scoping minimum viable product...
Then execute the protocol below.
Context Guard
| Context | Status |
|---|---|
| User says "MVP", "minimum viable product", "scope the MVP" | ACTIVE |
| User says "what should I build first" or "strip to core" | ACTIVE |
| User has an idea and wants to know the smallest thing to build | ACTIVE |
| User wants a full product requirements document | DORMANT: use PRD Writer |
| User wants a roadmap beyond MVP | DORMANT: use Roadmap Builder |
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Why It's Wrong |
|---|---|
| "MVP means bad quality" | Minimum viable means minimum scope, not minimum quality. Ship fewer features, but polish them. |
| "Add just one more thing" | Every "one more thing" adds a week. The MVP is a hypothesis test, not a product launch. |
| "Build the whole backend first" | Start with what users see and interact with. Fake the backend if needed (wizard of oz MVP). |
| "Skip the hypothesis" | Without a hypothesis, you're just building. The MVP exists to test ONE assumption. |
| "No success criteria" | How will you know if the MVP worked? Define the test before building. |
Protocol
Step 1: Define the Hypothesis
If the user hasn't provided details, ask:
- Idea: what are you building? (one paragraph)
- Target user: who is the first user? (be specific: not "everyone")
- Problem: what painful problem does this solve?
- Assumption: what's the riskiest assumption? (the thing that must be true for this to work)
- Existing alternatives: how do people solve this today?
Hypothesis template:
## Core Hypothesis
We believe that [target users]
have a problem with [specific pain point].
If we build [proposed solution],
they will [expected behavior: sign up, pay, use weekly, share].
We will know this is true when [measurable success criteria].
### Riskiest Assumption
[The single assumption that, if wrong, makes the whole product fail]
### How the MVP Tests This
[Specifically how the MVP will validate or invalidate the assumption]
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.
- yesterday Changed a304e506ee3b
- yesterday First seen · 289 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 1d6b30d396ec
memstack-product-mvp-scoper is a skill published in the GitHub repository cwinvestments/memstack (419 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 2,506 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
ccpm
CCPM - spec-driven project management: PRD → Epic → GitHub Issues → parallel agents → shipped code. Use this skill for anything in the software delivery lifecycle: writing a PRD ('write a PRD for X', 'let's plan X', 'scope this out'), parsing a PRD into an epic, decomposing an epic into tasks, syncing to GitHub ('sync…
issue-triage
Issue triage: audit open issues, categorize, detect duplicates, cross-ref PRs, risk assessment, post comments. Args: "all" for deep analysis of all, issue numbers to focus (e.g. "42 57"), "en"/"fr" for language, no arg = audit only in French.
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by BitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
miniapp-dev
Develops, maintains, and generates BitFun MiniApps (Zero-Dialect Runtime). Use when (1) working on miniapp framework code under src/crates/assembly/core/src/miniapp/ or src/web-ui/src/app/scenes/miniapps/; or (2) generating / creating / designing a NEW MiniApp for the user — including any request like "做一个小应用 / 生成…
commit-push-pr
Commit selected local changes, push the branch, and create or update a GitHub pull request with BitFun attribution. Use when the user asks to 提交 PR、提代码、commit and push、开 PR、create a pull request, or wants a Claude Code-like one-command PR publishing flow from BitFun.