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/getcrew44/crew44/pol-probe-advisornpx skills add getcrew44/crew44 --skill pol-probe-advisorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/getcrew44/crew44Wrote 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/getcrew44/crew44/pol-probe-advisor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/getcrew44/crew44/pol-probe-advisor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/getcrew44/crew44/pol-probe-advisor.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 5.1 | $0.00043 | $0.04678 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.02339 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00936 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00468 |
Grade A, and why
pol-probe-advisor 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 5d 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 — 493 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Guide product managers through selecting the right Proof of Life (PoL) probe type (of 5 flavors) based on their hypothesis, risk, and available resources. Use this when you need to eliminate a specific risk or test a narrow hypothesis, but aren't sure which validation method to use. This interactive skill ensures you match the cheapest prototype to the harshest truth—not the prototype you're most comfortable building.
This is not a tool for deciding if you should validate (you should). It's a decision framework for choosing how to validate most effectively.
Key Concepts
The Core Problem: Method-Hypothesis Mismatch
Common failure mode: PMs choose validation methods based on tooling comfort ("I know Figma, so I'll design a prototype") rather than learning goal. Result: validate the wrong thing, miss the actual risk.
Solution: Work backwards from the hypothesis. Ask: "What specific risk am I eliminating? What's the cheapest path to harsh truth?"
The 5 PoL Probe Flavors (Quick Reference)
| Type | Core Question | Best For | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility Check | "Can we build this?" | Technical unknowns, API dependencies, data integrity | 1-2 days |
| Task-Focused Test | "Can users complete this job without friction?" | Critical UI moments, field labels, decision points | 2-5 days |
| Narrative Prototype | "Does this workflow earn stakeholder buy-in?" | Storytelling, explaining complex flows, alignment | 1-3 days |
| Synthetic Data Simulation | "Can we model this without production risk?" | Edge cases, unknown-unknowns, statistical modeling | 2-4 days |
| Vibe-Coded PoL Probe | "Will this solution survive real user contact?" | Workflow/UX validation with real interactions | 2-3 days |
Golden Rule: "Use the cheapest prototype that tells the harshest truth."
Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
- Not "build the prototype you're comfortable with": Match method to hypothesis, not skillset
- Not "pick based on stakeholder preference": Optimize for learning, not internal politics
- Not "choose the most impressive option": Impressive ≠ informative
- Not "default to code": Writing code should be your last resort, not your first
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 493 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 9fa988deec68
pol-probe-advisor is a skill published in the GitHub repository getcrew44/crew44 (359 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 4,678 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
writing
将共享历史中的已验证事实和计算结果整理成符合受众、格式与长度约束的成稿。.
interview
Ask one useful structured question at a time only when material product/implementation choices are genuinely missing; remember answers and produce a brief/spec. Discoverable facts should be investigated instead of asked.
test
Detect the project’s test stack, run the narrowest useful tests, create tests when authorized, and report coverage/gaps honestly.
verify
Exercise the real app/API/CLI and collect observable evidence; tests alone do not count as end-to-end verification.
zcode-delegate
Delegate a coding task to the Z.AI ZCode CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to ZCode — phrasings like "have ZCode do X", "delegate this to ZCode", "run it through ZCode", or "use ZCode to implement/fix/refactor" — or…
mcp-scripting
Write mcpScript JavaScript for discovering, inspecting, and calling MCP tools.