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/bybren-llc/safe-agentic-workflow/retrogit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bybren-llc/safe-agentic-workflowWrote 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/bybren-llc/safe-agentic-workflow/retro)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/bybren-llc/safe-agentic-workflow/retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bybren-llc/safe-agentic-workflow/retro.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 | $0.00006 | $0.00412 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00206 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
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 5d 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 conducting a retrospective. Analyze the work completed in this session and provide structured feedback for continuous improvement.
Retrospective Framework
🎯 What Worked Really Well
Identify positive outcomes:
- Effective collaboration patterns
- Successful process adherence
- Quality deliverables
- Efficient workflows
- Good decision-making moments
Focus: What should we keep doing?
🤔 Observations & Learning Moments
Neutral observations about the work:
- Interesting patterns noticed
- Process insights discovered
- Technical learnings
- Workflow observations
- Context or clarity issues
Focus: What did we learn?
🚀 What Could Be Better
Areas for improvement:
- Process friction points
- Workflow inefficiencies
- Communication gaps
- Documentation issues
- Tool or automation opportunities
Focus: What should we improve?
💡 Process Insights
Broader insights about our working style:
- When to use subagents vs handle yourself
- How decisions get made
- What documentation helps most
- Communication preferences
- Workflow preferences
Focus: What patterns are emerging?
📊 Session Metrics
Quantify the work:
- Deliverables completed
- PRs created
- Issues resolved
- Files modified
- Documentation updated
- Time spent
Focus: What did we accomplish?
🎯 Questions for Discussion
Open questions for the team:
- Process decisions to validate
- Priority clarifications needed
- Workflow improvements to consider
- Tool or process experiments to try
Focus: What needs team input?
🌟 Wins to Celebrate
Highlight achievements:
- Goals met
- Quality work delivered
- Good collaboration moments
- Process improvements validated
- Skills developed
Focus: What went exceptionally well?
Output Format
Provide retrospective in structured sections above.
Be honest, specific, and constructive. Focus on continuous improvement while celebrating wins.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 100 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 905c8922ef29
retro is a command published in the GitHub repository bybren-llc/safe-agentic-workflow (406 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 412 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 commands, from other repositories
help
Category: System Syntax: /help [command|topic].
translate-docs
翻译项目文档到指定语言.
review-tasks
审查任务的忠实度、可执行性、依赖关系与验证.
tasks-to-issues
将现有任务转换为该功能的可操作 GitHub Issues.
clarify
Reduce spec ambiguity via targeted questions with adaptive auto-invocation (planning is 80% of success).
ultrathink
Enter deep craftsman mode - question everything, plan like Da Vinci, craft insanely great solutions, then materialize to roadmap.