PM Skills is a collection of plain-Markdown instructions that teach AI assistants structured methods for handling professional, personal, and life-admin tasks. People use it with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Codex, and other supported agents for work such as writing product requirements, reviewing documents, or planning difficult situations.
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 mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill ai-roi-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skillsWrote 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/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/ai-roi-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/ai-roi-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/ai-roi-audit/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/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/ai-roi-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/ai-roi-audit.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 | $0.00118 | $0.01302 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00521 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00260 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
ai-roi-audit 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 2d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
AI ROI Audit Skill
Every org now spends real money on AI tools, and most justify it with adoption counts ("80% weekly active!") — which measure enthusiasm, not return. This skill audits what the spend returned, using methods that survive a sceptical CFO: baselines, counterfactuals, and quality deltas, with "we can't know yet" said out loud where it's true.
What This Skill Produces
- A per-tool verdict table: keep / consolidate / renegotiate / cut, each with its evidence
- The measurement behind each number — method, baseline, confidence — so the audit is checkable
- A hidden-cost ledger (the part vendor ROI decks omit)
- A baseline plan for every "unknown", so next year's audit has data
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- The AI tool inventory with costs: subscriptions, API spend, seats — and utilisation if known
- What each tool was bought to do (the promised outcome, from the original business case if it exists)
- Available evidence: usage data, before/after metrics, time studies, quality data, anecdotes (labelled as anecdotes)
- The decision at stake: renewal? consolidation? budget defence? (calibrates depth)
Audit Method
- Reconstruct the promise. Per tool: what outcome justified the purchase — time saved, quality improved, headcount avoided, revenue created? A tool without a stated outcome gets audited against the best-fit guess, flagged as retrofitted.
- Score with the strongest method the evidence allows, in descending order of credibility:
- Natural experiment — teams/periods with vs without the tool, same work (best available in most orgs)
- Before/after with baseline — the metric before adoption vs after, seasonality noted
- Task-level time study — 10-20 real tasks timed with/without (cheap to run during the audit — do it rather than skip to tier 4)
- Structured self-report — users estimating time saved, discounted (self-reported AI savings run ~2× actuals; say so) Never present a tier-4 number with tier-1 confidence. Every figure carries its method and a confidence label.
- Count the hidden costs. Verification time (humans checking AI output), rework from AI errors that shipped, licence sprawl (seats bought > seats active), integration/prompt-maintenance time, and training time. These come off the gross benefit — an ROI audit that skips them is a vendor deck.
- Convert honestly. Time saved → money only via a stated loaded rate and a stated assumption about what the time became (more output? earlier finishes? — different values). "Saved 400 hours" that nobody redeployed is capacity, not cash; label which one you're claiming.
- Verdict per tool. Keep (positive with tier ≤2 evidence) · Consolidate (positive but duplicative — name the overlap) · Renegotiate (positive but mispriced vs utilisation) · Cut (negative or unmeasurable after a fair baseline attempt). Ties break toward the tool with a measurement plan.
- Leave the audit better than you found it. Every "unknown" verdict gets a baseline plan: the metric, how it's instrumented, and the review date. The first audit is mostly this; that's a finding, not a failure.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 78 lines · 118 tokens per session scan A 598950d4803b
ai-roi-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills (1,449 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 1,302 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-10-12.
Other skills, from other repositories
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…