Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Nam-Cheol/namba-ai. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Nam-Cheol/namba-ai/main/.agents/skills/namba-plan-pm-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Nam-Cheol/namba-aiWrote 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/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-pm-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-pm-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-pm-review/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/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-pm-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nam-cheol/namba-ai/namba-plan-pm-review.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00504 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
namba-plan-pm-review 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 12d 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.
What it actually says
State effect: mutating review update. Writes SPEC review artifacts and readiness summaries.
Generated instruction contract for this command skill:
- Purpose: keep the role or command scope explicit, bounded, and testable.
- Boundary: honor read-only versus mutating state effects, configured sandbox mode, and assigned file or workflow ownership.
- Required output: report concrete actions, changed paths or artifacts, validation evidence, and pass/fail status or blockers.
- Pass/fail criteria: claim success only when acceptance criteria and configured validation are satisfied; otherwise name the exact blocker and impact.
- Evidence expectations: cite source artifacts such as SPEC files,
.namba/configs, diffs, test output, PR/check links, or generated manifests instead of relying on unsupported assertions. - Security responsibilities: never expose or commit secrets; treat auth, privacy, destructive commands, permission changes, and external network or credential use as security-sensitive.
- Destructive command and escalation policy: do not run destructive commands unless explicitly requested; request approval for privileged, networked, or sandbox-blocked actions only when the active approval mode allows it, and otherwise report the blocker or use a safe non-escalating path.
- Fallback implementer boundary: if a specialist path is unavailable and the main/default implementer takes over, stay within the assigned scope and preserve the same evidence and validation duties.
- Portability: keep durable guidance non-project-specific unless the current repository config or SPEC explicitly provides the project detail.
Use this skill when the user explicitly says $namba-plan-pm-review or asks for a product review on a SPEC package.
Behavior:
- Resolve the target SPEC from an explicit
SPEC-XXX; otherwise use the latest SPEC under.namba/specs/. - Read
.namba/specs/<SPEC>/spec.md,plan.md, andacceptance.mdbefore writing review notes. - Update
.namba/specs/<SPEC>/reviews/product.mdwith status, reviewer, findings, decisions, follow-ups, and recommendation. - Prefer
namba-product-manageras the review role when subagent routing is appropriate. - Refresh
.namba/specs/<SPEC>/reviews/readiness.mdso the advisory summary reflects the latest review state. - Keep the review advisory by default; surface missing depth or blockers clearly without silently turning the workflow into a hard gate.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 28 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 8f7b51fbf447
namba-plan-pm-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Nam-Cheol/namba-ai (11 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 504 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
create-issue
Draft and submit a GitHub issue from a user idea or bug description, with bilingual body and correct labels.
starting-a-new-project
Use when the workspace is empty — no code yet — and the user brings a raw idea: the brand-new branch of setting-up-a-project, normally reached via that dispatcher, directly only when the situation is unmistakable. Not for features in an existing project — use brainstorming instead.
swarm-plan
Full execution protocol for MODE: PLAN -- plan creation, external plan ingestion, QA gate persistence, task granularity, and traceability checks.
loop
Full execution protocol for MODE: LOOP — the compound-engineering loop: brainstorm → plan → build → review → improve, iterating under defense-in-depth stop conditions with generator/critic separation, durable resumable state, and mandatory compounding learning capture. Loaded on demand by the architect when the loop…
parallel-work-check
Apply before starting work on an existing branch. Checks for parallel work by other agents or developers that may supersede or conflict with your planned changes. Prevents wasted effort on stale branches.
issue-ingest
Full execution protocol for MODE: ISSUEINGEST -- GitHub issue intake, localization, spec generation, and transition to the full fix workflow.