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/classicchins/compounding-marketing/cm-retrogit 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.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 | $0.00904 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 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 6d 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.
- 6d 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 3mo 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.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.