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/zhyx12/projtoolWrote 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/zhyx12/projtool/retrospective)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zhyx12/projtool/retrospective"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zhyx12/projtool/retrospective/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/zhyx12/projtool/retrospective"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zhyx12/projtool/retrospective.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00560 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00224 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
retrospective 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.
What it actually says
You are running the user's /retrospective command. The goal is Sionic-style
knowledge capture: whatever this session learned must land in the docs repo
NOW, not evaporate when the conversation ends. Failed attempts are the most
valuable entries — they're what prevents re-running dead ends next month.
Steps
-
Determine the experiment scope. If the session touched one experiment, use it; if several, do one findings pass per experiment (confirm with the user which ones matter).
-
Gather the raw record for each experiment:
mcp__projtool__list_runs(withexperiment_id, generouslimit) andmcp__projtool__compare_runsfor the metric table;- the auto-appended
docs/exp/<slug>/journal.md(chronological log); - anything notable from this conversation that the journal can't know: hypotheses, dead ends, environment quirks, manual bypasses.
-
Draft into
docs/exp/<slug>/findings.md(create if absent). Structure — keep existing content, append/update sections:# Findings — <experiment> ## Established (what we now believe, with evidence) - <claim> — run `<run_id>`, <metric>=<value> ## Failed attempts (do not retry without new information) | Tried | Why it failed | Evidence (run / log) | |---|---|---| ## Environment / tooling gotchas - <exact fix, exact command> ## Open questions - <question> — what evidence would settle it -
Show the draft to the user for corrections. Do not invent conclusions the runs don't support — if a number is missing from the manifests, say so rather than reconstructing it from memory.
-
After approval, commit in the docs repo (explicit paths, matching projtool convention):
cd <container>/docs && git add exp/<slug>/findings.md && git commit -m "findings: <slug> — <one-line summary>" -
If the session also revealed installs/config that a fresh instance needs, remind the user those belong in
.proj-tool/env-setup.sh(append them now if they aren't there).
Before designing the NEXT experiment, read findings.md + journal.md
first — that's the whole point of writing them.
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 · 60 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A bbc8f420d40e
retrospective is a command published in the GitHub repository zhyx12/projtool (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 560 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
retrospective compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| retrospectivezhyx12/projtool | Command | 1 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 36 | Claude Code |
| standupvvedantb/eva | Command | 101 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| gitazrtydxb/procoder | Command | 211 | 11d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 20 | Claude Code |
| session-reportdamusix/atomic-claude | Command | 115 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 31 | Claude Code |
| commitechoVic/blade-code | Command | 181 | 24d ago | MIT | A | 8 | Claude Code |
| git-workflowHermeticOrmus/LibreUIUX-Claude-Code | Command | 115 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 14 | Claude Code |
| commitjoaquimscosta/arkhe-claude-plugins | Command | 22 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 11 | Claude Code |