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/classicchins/compounding-marketingWrote 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/classicchins/compounding-marketing/cm-retro)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/classicchins/compounding-marketing/cm-retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/classicchins/compounding-marketing/cm-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/commands/classicchins/compounding-marketing/cm-retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/classicchins/compounding-marketing/cm-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00904 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00362 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
cm-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 2mo 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 — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/cm:retro — Campaign / Sprint Retrospective
Structured post-mortem for campaigns, launches, or sprints.
What It Does
A deeper analysis than /cm:compound. While compound captures quick learnings, retro does a full post-mortem: what happened, why it happened, what to change. Best run after campaigns, launches, or sprint cycles.
Time Investment
20-30 minutes
Process
1. Set the Scope
- What are we reviewing? (Campaign name, sprint #, launch, experiment)
- What was the timeline? (Start → end)
- What was the original goal?
- What was the actual outcome?
2. Results vs. Expectations
| Metric | Target | Actual | Delta | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Primary metric] | ... | ... | ... | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| [Secondary metric] | ... | ... | ... | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| [Secondary metric] | ... | ... | ... | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
Overall: Did we hit the goal? Why or why not?
3. What Worked (Keep Doing)
List things that went well. Be specific — not "content was good" but "the comparison blog post drove 340 signups at $2.40 CAC."
For each:
- What specifically worked?
- Why did it work?
- How can we do more of this?
- Can this be systematized?
4. What Didn't Work (Stop Doing)
List things that failed or underperformed. No blame — just facts.
For each:
- What happened?
- Why didn't it work? (Root cause, not surface)
- How much time/money was spent?
- Should we try again differently, or kill it?
5. What We'd Change (Start Doing)
Based on the above:
- What would we do differently if we ran this again?
- What new approach should we try?
- What process changes would improve execution?
6. Surprises & Insights
Things you didn't expect — both good and bad:
- Unexpected channel that worked
- Audience segment that responded differently
- Content format that surprised
- Timing or sequencing insight
7. Action Items
Concrete next steps:
| Action | Owner | Deadline | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Action] | [Who] | [When] | High/Med/Low |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 139 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 83762d84c3ed
cm-retro is a command published in the GitHub repository classicchins/compounding-marketing (8 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 904 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 2026-08-31.
cm-retro compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cm-retroclassicchins/compounding-marketing | Command | 8 | 5mo ago | MIT | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| checklistgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| clarifygithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 27 | Claude Code |
| specifygithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |
| analyzegithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 26 | Claude Code |
| convergegithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| implementgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 14 | Claude Code |