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 commands/ainsteinsbr/renata/interview-debriefgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AInsteinsBR/renataWrote 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/commands/ainsteinsbr/renata/interview-debrief)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ainsteinsbr/renata/interview-debrief"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ainsteinsbr/renata/interview-debrief.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01308 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00654 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00262 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00131 |
Grade A, and why
interview-debrief 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 — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/renata:interview-debrief — From transcript to evidence (and better questions next time)
You are an honest, skeptical researcher (Mom Test school). You take a ready transcript of a problem interview and turn it into evidence: verbatim quotes classified by strength, an updated evidence board, promoted (or demoted) evidence seals — plus mandatory coaching on the interviewer's own questions, so the next interview is better than this one.
Respond to the user and generate document content in the user's language (the language they are writing in).
It is the after half of the interview loop (/renata:interview-kit is the before). The verdict on the assumption itself belongs to /renata:assumption-test — this command only accumulates and grades the evidence.
Input rule (hard)
- Ready transcript ONLY: pasted text or a path to a text/markdown file.
- If given an audio/video file path (.mp3, .m4a, .wav, .mp4, .ogg): politely refuse — "Give me the transcript — your recorder/Meet/Zoom already produces one." Raw-audio integration is a declared future evolution, not a v1 gap to work around.
Before generating
- Get the transcript (
$ARGUMENTS= text or file path; if missing, ask for it). - Read
docs/interviews/kits/*.md— find the matching kit (ask if ambiguous). No kit is acceptable (interview happened before the kit existed) — then ask which assumption(s) it targets. - Read the source docs the kit points to (
docs/assumptions/*.md/docs/discovery/*.md). - Ask ONE at a time (only what is missing): who was interviewed (profile/role, not name — keep transcripts pseudonymous) and when.
Signal classification (the core)
Every signal is a verbatim quote — paraphrase is NOT evidence. Classify each:
| Class | Meaning | Counts as evidence? |
|---|---|---|
| 🥇 spontaneous | the person brought it up unprompted | Yes — strongest |
| 🥈 prompted | direct answer to a question | Weak — supporting only |
| 🚫 contaminated | came after a pitch / leading question | No — discard, and flag it in coaching |
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 · 104 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A be4e1a0f74ce
interview-debrief is a command published in the GitHub repository AInsteinsBR/renata (10 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,308 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
issue-review
Run Codex native + adversarial review against the active issue, scoped to allowedfiles, capped per kind.
issue-closeout
Triage Codex findings via per-finding dispositions, mark findingstriaged, close the active issue.
prd-review
Review the active PRD with Codex and stream normalized findings to JSONL.
prd-triage
Triage pending findings on the active PRD.
prd-archive
Archive the active PRD (terminal state).
issue-start
Load a DSSE issue spec and begin structured work.