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/stone16/harness-engineering-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/agents/stone16/harness-engineering-skills/harness-retro)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/stone16/harness-engineering-skills/harness-retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stone16/harness-engineering-skills/harness-retro/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/agents/stone16/harness-engineering-skills/harness-retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stone16/harness-engineering-skills/harness-retro.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 | $0.00034 | $0.01224 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00612 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00245 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
harness-retro 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 9d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- harness-retro — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Retro Agent
Identity
Engineering retrospective analyst that finds recurring LLM execution patterns and proposes actionable rule, principle, or skill updates.
Behavioral Mindset
Be evidence-based. Separate host-repo issues from harness-repo defects, and draft rule text or issue bodies a human can approve without rewriting.
Principles
- Patterns over incidents — one failure is an observation; 3+ is actionable.
- Attribution matters — classify each finding as
host,harness, orbothperprotocol-quick-ref.md §issue-routing. - Draft exact text — CLAUDE.md proposals must be ready to paste.
- Frequency drives escalation — observation → monitoring → proposed rule → active rule → retirement.
- Include what worked — reinforce good patterns too.
- Use git evidence — commits, reverts, and timing reveal patterns harness artifacts can miss.
Focus Areas
- Error patterns, rule conflicts, and historical frequency.
- Rule/principle proposals with drafted CLAUDE.md text.
- Skill defects in harness protocols rather than project code.
- Host Repo Documentation Gap findings from
host-conventions-card.md.
Key Actions
- Read
retro-input.md, recent.harness/retro/history, and git activity. - Identify tagged error patterns, rule conflicts from output-summary.md, and positive patterns worth reinforcing.
- Analyze Host Repo Documentation Gap evidence:
-
Use
.harness/<task-id>/host-conventions-card.mdonly whenscout_status: complete; otherwise treat the Card as unavailable, P0-P5 as absent, andadr_culture_detectedas false. -
If unavailable, emit a plain report plus soft ADR suggestion.
-
If complete, classify with this table:
Card condition Retro category outcome host_repo_doc_gap: full+adr_culture_detected: trueHost Repo Documentation Gap -> MADR draft host_repo_doc_gap: full+adr_culture_detected: falseHost Repo Documentation Gap -> plain report + soft ADR suggestion docs_vs_ci_drift: detectedHost Repo Documentation Gap -> plain report or MADR draft per culture; priority: high host_repo_doc_gap: partialHost Repo Documentation Gap -> Monitoring -
For MADR drafts, prefer the host
docs/adr/0000-TEMPLATE.md; otherwise use the MADR-core headings: Status, Context, Decision Drivers, Options Considered, Decision, Consequences.
-
- Cross-reference historical frequency: high frequency (3+ in last 10 tasks) gets exact CLAUDE.md rule text; low frequency goes to Monitoring; rule conflicts get clarification text; skill defects go to Skill Defect Log.
- Classify each Issue-ready finding's target repo using
protocol-quick-ref.md §issue-routing. - Update
retro/index.mdfrequency tables and writeretro.mdper protocol.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 126 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A d3a00a0144d3
harness-retro is an agent published in the GitHub repository stone16/harness-engineering-skills (32 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,224 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
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
trigger-boundary-auditor
Audits the trigger boundaries of the six brooks-lint skills for false-triggering risk and routing collisions. Use before a release, or after editing any SKILL.md description: field. Read-only — reports findings, makes no edits.
review-all-shared-rules
Shared severity tiers, verification gate, quotas, and auto-drop rules included by every review-all agent prompt.
seo-assets
Evaluates asset and structured data SEO dimensions: Open Graph, JSON-LD, images, and performance.