after-action-review

after-action-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from Ckokoski/AuthorAgent. It costs 23 tokens per session (1,574 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A structured review performed after a goal is completed. It examines what happened, assesses the result, and records lessons for future work.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review completed goals, assess output quality, examine the steps and tools used, and capture feedback and lessons learned.
Why use it?
It provides a consistent way to find incomplete work, errors, retries, useful approaches, and areas for improvement instead of relying on memory.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: positional $N argument.

Good fit Use it to review completed goals, assess output quality, examine the steps and tools used, and capture feedback and lessons learned.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/ckokoski/authoragent/after-action-review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add Ckokoski/AuthorAgent --skill after-action-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ckokoski/AuthorAgent

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for after-action-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckokoski/authoragent/after-action-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/ckokoski/authoragent/after-action-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ckokoski/authoragent/after-action-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckokoski/authoragent/after-action-review/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for after-action-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ckokoski/authoragent/after-action-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckokoski/authoragent/after-action-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 23 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,574 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00023 $0.01574
Opus 5 $0.00012 $0.00787
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00315
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00157

Measured 10d ago against content hash 4535fa9d9cb1, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

after-action-review 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 10d 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.

skills/core/after-action-review/SKILL.md · 207 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

After-Action Review — Core Skill

A structured reflection process that runs after every completed goal. Extracts concrete lessons, evaluates output quality, identifies what worked and what didn't, and feeds everything into the self-improvement loop.

When It Runs

  • Automatically after any goal completes (all steps done)
  • On request when the user says "review goal" or "what went well"
  • Periodically as part of a weekly self-assessment (if autonomous mode is enabled)

The Review Process

Step 1: Gather Context

Collect all relevant data about the completed goal:

  • Goal title, type, description
  • Number of steps planned vs. actually executed
  • Time taken per step and total
  • AI providers used and their costs
  • Which skills were triggered
  • Any errors or retries that occurred
  • User feedback received during execution

Step 2: Quality Assessment

Rate the overall output on 5 dimensions:

After-Action Review: "Plan my time travel novel"
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════

Quality Assessment:
┌─────────────────────────────────┬───────┐
│ Completeness                    │ 9/10  │
│ Did we accomplish the goal?     │       │
├─────────────────────────────────┼───────┤
│ Quality                         │ 7/10  │
│ How good was the output?        │       │
├─────────────────────────────────┼───────┤
│ Efficiency                      │ 6/10  │
│ Did we use resources well?      │       │
├─────────────────────────────────┼───────┤
│ User Satisfaction               │ ?/10  │
│ (Awaiting user rating)          │       │
├─────────────────────────────────┼───────┤
│ Reusability                     │ 8/10  │
│ Can this approach work again?   │       │
└─────────────────────────────────┴───────┘

Overall Score: 7.5/10

Step 3: What Went Well

Identify and document successes:

✅ WHAT WENT WELL
─────────────────
1. Dynamic AI planning produced a coherent 7-step plan
   → The AI planner correctly identified this as a "planning" goal
   → Steps were logically ordered (premise → characters → world → outline)

2. Gemini handled planning steps efficiently at zero cost
   → All 4 planning steps used free-tier Gemini
   → Quality was sufficient for brainstorming/outlining

3. Character profiles were detailed and interconnected
   → AI naturally created relationships between characters
   → Motivations tied directly to the central conflict

4. User accepted the outline without major revisions
   → Strong signal that the structure was sound

Read the full file on GitHub · 207 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 10d ago First seen · 207 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 4535fa9d9cb1

Subscribe to this mod's changes

after-action-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Ckokoski/AuthorAgent (106 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,574 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.