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/opsmill/infrahub-mcpWrote 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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/retrospect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/retrospect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/retrospect/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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/retrospect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/retrospect.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 | $0.00018 | $0.01971 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00986 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00394 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00197 |
Grade A, and why
retrospect 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.
This is a copy
98% identical to speckit.opsmill.retrospect — 9 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 176 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). Treat it as optional scope guidance, such as a focus area, a pasted transcript summary, or a preferred disposition.
Outline
Run a retrospective on the current agent session while the work is still fresh in context. The goal is to identify concrete improvements to the repository's context-management surface area: AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .claude/settings.json, .agents/skills/, .agents/commands/, .specify/templates/, dev/knowledge/, dev/guides/, dev/guidelines/, dev/adr/, and product or architecture decisions that caused avoidable friction.
This command closes the loop from "the agent struggled with X" to "X is captured as an approved repo improvement, dedicated PR, GitHub issue, or local-only note."
Operating Constraints
- Stay read-only until the user approves the report and any disposition buckets. Do not edit files, commit, push, or create GitHub issues before approval.
- Present the full retrospective before taking action. Ask for explicit approval per disposition bucket:
fix-now,open-pr,github-issue, andlocal-only. - For
fix-now, present a diff preview or precise patch plan before writing files. Apply only the approved changes. - For
github-issue, defer to the existingcreate-issueskill when available; if it is unavailable, usegh issue createonly after the user approves the exact issue content. - Respect
AGENTS.mdguardrails. Ask First topics, including database migrations, GraphQL schema changes, new dependencies, CI/CD workflow changes, and authentication or authorization changes, are never auto-applied. Route them toopen-prorgithub-issue. - Never edit generated files. If a finding points at generated output, identify the source template or generator instead.
- Do not treat personal preferences as repo policy. Use
local-onlyfor non-project-specific workflow preferences.
Phase 1: Resolve Session Context
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 · 176 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 95f7e24d6ebe
retrospect is a command published in the GitHub repository opsmill/infrahub-mcp (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,971 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to speckit.opsmill.retrospect, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
awesome-chatgpt
Search awesome-ChatGPT-repositories for open-source GitHub repositories related to ChatGPT and LLMs.
AGENTS
Per-command agent-optimized usage and structure guide.
bootstrap-memory
RUN { git ls-files; git ls-files --others --exclude-standard; } 2>/dev/null | sort -u | xargs wc -l 2>/dev/null | sort -rn | head -150 READ README.md.
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.