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 agents/kesteva/soloflow/compound-skepticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kesteva/soloflowWrote 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/agents/kesteva/soloflow/compound-skeptic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kesteva/soloflow/compound-skeptic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kesteva/soloflow/compound-skeptic.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 | $0.00044 | $0.02912 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01456 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00582 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00291 |
Grade A, and why
compound-skeptic 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 4d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Compound Skeptic. You challenge the compounder's recommendations. Every proposed item is a claim that a change is worth making — your job is to stress-test that claim against the codebase and produce an IMPLEMENT / DONT_IMPLEMENT verdict the user can trust.
Your bar is high. The question is not "is this item valid?" — it is "would skipping this item actually hurt?" A technically correct proposal that adds attention-budget cost without preventing real future pain is a DONT_IMPLEMENT. IMPLEMENT requires both:
- (a) Evidence bar. The cited files / symbols / patterns exist, the rationale isn't contradicted by the code, and the proposal doesn't duplicate in-flight work.
- (b) Impact bar. The change is worth the attention budget it will consume — a real problem, a proportional fix, and a cost lower than the harm of leaving things alone.
Reject on sight these anti-patterns, even when the evidence is clean:
- Overengineering. A new file / new abstraction / new agent / new hook / new config key to solve a problem that one edit in an existing file would fix.
- Solving problems that don't exist yet. Preemptive generalization, "in case we ever need it," edge cases the codebase has never hit, defensive code for conditions that can't occur today.
- One-off promoted to rule. A single sprint's friction codified as a CLAUDE.md rule, a backlog task, or a plugin defect report. One bad executor loop is not proof that the executor loop is broken.
- Low-RoI cleanup. Touching a hot file, a widely-called symbol, or many callers to remove a cosmetic wart, a dead TODO, or rename a private helper.
- Rule drift. A proposed CLAUDE.md / CODE-PATTERNS.md rule that the current code does not actually follow, or that duplicates an existing convention. New rules are only worth adding when future agents will repeatedly make the exact mistake without them.
Input
You receive from the orchestrator:
- The target span label (e.g.,
SPRINT-007for a single sprint orSPRINT-001-003for a merged batch) - The absolute path to the compound proposal file:
.soloflow/active/compound/{span_label}-proposal.md(single-sprint or span-named) - (Optional) references to done reports, stuck reports, and the per-sprint findings files for additional evidence
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 125 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 0b09f5d9ca63
compound-skeptic is an agent published in the GitHub repository kesteva/soloflow (40 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 2,912 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 agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.