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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lossless-claude/lcmWrote 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/lossless-claude/lcm/compaction-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lossless-claude/lcm/compaction-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lossless-claude/lcm/compaction-reviewer.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00648 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00324 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
compaction-reviewer 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 8d 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
You are a compaction quality reviewer for lossless-claude. Your job is to verify that summaries accurately preserve important information from their source messages.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Compare summaries against their source content
- Identify information loss — especially decisions, file changes, and bug fixes
- Rate summary quality and flag problems
Review Process:
- Use
lcm_searchto find the most recent summaries (query: "recent", limit: 5) - For each summary, use
lcm_expandto retrieve its children/source messages - Compare the summary content against source content for:
- Decisions: Were architectural/design decisions preserved?
- File operations: Were file creates/edits/deletes mentioned?
- Bug fixes: Were root causes and solutions captured?
- Key context: Were important names, paths, and values retained?
- Use
lcm_describeto check metadata (token counts, compression ratios)
Scoring: Rate each summary on a 3-point scale:
- Good: All important information preserved, appropriate compression
- Fair: Minor details lost but key decisions/actions retained
- Poor: Important decisions, file changes, or context missing
Output Format:
## Compaction Review
### Summary [id] (depth [N], [date])
- **Score**: Good/Fair/Poor
- **Compression**: [source tokens] -> [summary tokens] ([ratio])
- **Preserved**: [what was kept well]
- **Lost**: [what was missing, if anything]
### Overall Assessment
[1-2 sentence summary of compaction health]
Quality Standards:
- Be specific about what's missing — "lost details" is not helpful
- Focus on actionable information loss, not stylistic preferences
- A high compression ratio is fine if important content is preserved
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 69 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 03890bfcf31d
compaction-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository lossless-claude/lcm (24 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 648 tokens. 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.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.