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 skills add derricktang/pm-workflow-plugin --skill problem-statementgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/derricktang/pm-workflow-pluginWrote 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/derricktang/pm-workflow-plugin/problem-statement)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/derricktang/pm-workflow-plugin/problem-statement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/derricktang/pm-workflow-plugin/problem-statement/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/skills/derricktang/pm-workflow-plugin/problem-statement"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/derricktang/pm-workflow-plugin/problem-statement.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 | $0.00044 | $0.02216 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00886 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00222 |
Grade A, and why
problem-statement 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
98% identical to problem-statement — 3 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 — 250 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Articulate a problem from the user's perspective using an empathy-driven framework that captures who they are, what they're trying to do, what's blocking them, why, and how it makes them feel. Use this to align stakeholders on the problem before jumping to solutions, and to frame product work around user outcomes rather than feature requests.
This is not a requirements doc—it's a human-centered problem narrative that ensures you're solving a problem worth solving.
Key Concepts
The Problem Framing Framework
Based on Jobs-to-be-Done and empathy mapping, the framework structures problems as:
Problem Framing Narrative:
- I am: [Describe the persona experiencing the problem]
- Trying to: [Desired outcomes the persona cares about]
- But: [Barriers preventing the outcomes]
- Because: [Root cause of the problem]
- Which makes me feel: [Emotional impact]
Context & Constraints:
- [Geographic, technological, time-based, demographic factors]
Final Problem Statement:
- [Single, concise, empathetic summary]
Why This Structure Works
- Persona-centric: Forces you to see the problem through the user's eyes
- Outcome-focused: "Trying to" emphasizes desired results, not tasks
- Root cause analysis: "Because" pushes past symptoms to underlying issues
- Emotional validation: "Makes me feel" humanizes the problem and builds empathy
- Contextual: Constraints acknowledge real-world limitations
Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
- Not a solution in disguise: "The problem is we lack AI-powered analytics" = sneaking in a solution
- Not a business problem: "Our revenue is down" isn't a user problem (it's a symptom)
- Not a feature request: "Users need a dashboard" isn't a problem (what are they trying to do?)
- Not generic: "Users want better UX" is too vague to be actionable
When to Use This
- Kicking off discovery or problem validation work
- Aligning stakeholders before solutioning
- Socializing a problem with engineering, design, or exec teams
- When you have feature requests but unclear underlying problems
- Pitching why a problem is worth solving
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 250 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 76a569725248
problem-statement is a skill published in the GitHub repository derricktang/pm-workflow-plugin (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 2,216 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to problem-statement, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
mcp-builder
Guide for creating high-quality MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers that enable LLMs to interact with external services through well-designed tools. Use when building MCP servers to integrate external APIs or services, whether in Python (FastMCP) or Node/TypeScript (MCP SDK).
last30Days
Resolve "last30Days" to a concrete ISO date range relative to your run time — a rolling 30-day window ending today. Returns inclusive civil dates plus exact UTC instants so you have temporal context without computing dates by hand. Read-only: no writes, no network. Use before a "last 30 days" / trailing-month task…
thisWeek
Resolve "thisWeek" to a concrete ISO date range relative to your run time — this week so far (Monday → today). Returns inclusive civil dates plus exact UTC instants so you have temporal context without computing dates by hand. Read-only: no writes, no network. Use before a week-to-date task (this week's activity…
comet-hotfix
A quick workflow for fixing an existing bug in Comet, a tool that manages structured code changes. It moves through opening the change, building, checking, and archiving it.
comet-design
A workflow guide for turning an existing software change into a detailed technical design document. It builds on earlier proposal and design files and defines implementation risks, tests, and edge cases.
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.