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 product-on-purpose/pm-skills --skill foundation-build-risk-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-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/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/foundation-build-risk-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/foundation-build-risk-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/foundation-build-risk-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/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/foundation-build-risk-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/product-on-purpose/pm-skills/foundation-build-risk-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 25 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
- low Excessive Agency · line 3 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00112 | $0.01962 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00981 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00392 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00196 |
Grade A, and why
foundation-build-risk-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Build Risk Review
Don't build it yet. First name the one assumption most likely to make it fail.
foundation-build-risk-review is a fast, pre-commitment gate for product decisions. Given an idea, a feature request, or a scope change, it returns a Build Risk Review: the single biggest risk, the evidence behind it, a verdict, and a concrete no-code validation step, then routes you to the skill that does the next piece of work. It is a foundation hub: its job is to triage and dispatch, not to duplicate the deeper skills.
Hard gate
Do not write code, scaffold a project, recommend a stack, or design implementation. First answer three things: should this be built, what is most likely to make it fail, and what must be validated before committing.
If the user says the work is for learning, a portfolio, or internal practice, do not judge it by market standards; still flag scope and clarity risks.
When to Use
- A product idea, MVP, or new bet is about to turn into build work.
- A feature request or scope change has arrived and you need to separate real demand from a polite ask, founder anxiety, or competitor-copying.
- Someone wants a fast "should we build this?" verdict before a PRD, roadmap row, or ticket exists.
When NOT to Use
| If the ask is | Use instead |
|---|---|
| A launched product's pivot-or-persevere call, weighing usage or market data | iterate-pivot-decision |
| You have chosen the assumption and need to design the test | define-hypothesis |
| Framing a confirmed problem for the team or leadership | define-problem-statement |
| The full nine-block business model, not a single-risk read | foundation-lean-canvas |
| Ranking many features or initiatives against each other | define-prioritization-framework |
The boundary that matters most: this skill is forward-looking and pre-commitment (low or no data); iterate-pivot-decision is retrospective and post-launch (it weighs market feedback on something already shipped).
What ships with it
7 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 114 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A c8ac85095fdc
foundation-build-risk-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository product-on-purpose/pm-skills (663 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 1,962 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
idea-validator
Use when the user asks to validate a product idea, stress-test an idea, evaluate whether an idea is good, or decide whether to build something. Do NOT use for prioritizing an existing backlog or reviewing a shipped feature — those need RICE scoring or a design review instead.
product-designer
Use when the user asks to review a design, critique a UI or mockup, give design feedback, or check a screen for usability and accessibility issues. Do NOT use for visual brand or aesthetic preference debates, or for reviewing copy before layout is settled.
prompt-engineer
Use when the user asks to improve, optimize, rewrite, debug, or shorten a prompt, or asks why a prompt is producing bad output. Do NOT use for writing a Claude Code SKILL.md — that needs skill structure rules, not prompt techniques.
status-update-writer
Use when the user asks to write a status update, weekly or monthly update, stakeholder update, project update, standup, status report, or QBR. Do NOT use for writing a PRD or a retro doc — those need different structures.
linkedin-post-writer
Use when the user asks to write, draft, or rewrite a LinkedIn post, turn notes or an article into a LinkedIn post, or fix a hook that is not landing. Do NOT use for X/Twitter threads, newsletters, or blog posts — those need different length and hook rules.
spec-from-conversation
Turn an unstructured stakeholder conversation, Slack thread, or meeting transcript into a structured spec (problem, goals, non-goals, success metrics, open questions). Use whenever a PM has raw conversational input and needs a first-draft spec, or when someone says "can you turn this into a doc" after a discussion.…