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 skills add corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin --skill corezoid-retrogit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/corezoid/corezoid-ai-pluginWrote 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/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-retro)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-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/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin/corezoid-retro.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 31 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00179 | $0.01785 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00089 | $0.00892 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00357 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00178 |
Grade A, and why
corezoid-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 9d 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 — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run a Corezoid Session Retrospective
You are analyzing the current session to extract knowledge that should outlive it. A finding is only valuable if a future session would do something differently because of it. Everything else is a summary, not a finding.
Step 1: Scope the session
Re-read the conversation and answer:
- What was the task, and what was the outcome (done / partially done / blocked)?
- Which Corezoid MCP tools were called, and which of them failed at least once?
- Where did the user intervene, correct, or redirect?
Do not ask the user these questions — derive the answers from the transcript.
Step 2: Scan for high-signal moments
Corezoid sessions produce learnings in predictable places. Check each of these explicitly — do not skip a row because it "probably didn't happen":
| # | Signal | What to extract |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | push-process / lint-process / modify-* failed, then a later attempt succeeded |
The delta between the failing and the working attempt — this is the single richest signal |
| 2 | Real task data contradicted an assumed shape (a field was a JSON string, not an array; a param was absent on some tasks) | The actual shape, stated as a fact about that process/workspace |
| 3 | The user corrected the approach mid-flow ("don't hardcode that", "use the alias, not the ID") | The rule behind the correction, generalized one level up from the specific instance |
| 4 | The same process ID, folder ID, alias, or env-var name was looked up more than once | The stable fact worth pinning (ID ↔ name ↔ purpose) |
| 5 | A plugin skill's documented procedure did not match actual platform behavior | Which skill, which step, what actually happens |
| 6 | An MCP tool returned an error that required a workaround (not a user mistake) | Repro conditions + the workaround |
| 7 | The user was prompted for permission on read-only calls more than twice | The tool pattern to allowlist |
Step 3: Route each finding
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 145 lines · 179 tokens per session scan A cdc1ccb270cd
corezoid-retro is a skill published in the GitHub repository corezoid/corezoid-ai-plugin (73 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 179 tokens to every session and 1,785 once invoked, about $0.0009 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
stop-that-shit
Keep coding agents focused on requested and necessary work. Use when a request sets a read-only, answer-only, file, action, or stopping boundary; when evidence shows scope creep, speculative hardening, unnecessary hashing or dependencies, repeated audit loops, or valueless delegation; or when the user invokes Stop…
stss
Reduce defensive disclaimers, stacked hedging, and self-protective narration in proposals and decision-facing writing. Use when the user asks to rewrite or audit a proposal, plan, research contribution, executive summary, or similar text for directness. Do not use for ordinary code work or unrelated prose.
superloopy-clone
Use when the user asks for Superloopy clone or asks to clone, rebuild, reverse-engineer, replicate, or copy a website or page into a Superloopy-governed implementation. Triggers on "loopy clone", target URLs plus requests such as "clone this site", "rebuild this page", "make a copy of this website", "pixel-perfect…
superloopy-loop
Use Superloopy's lightweight strict-evidence loop for Codex tasks that need durable progress, criteria, and artifact-backed completion.
superloopy-doctor
Use when diagnosing Superloopy doctor, install, wrapper, plugin cache, hook bootstrap, bundled agents, marketplace, Codex, Claude Code, stale-version, evidence-floor, or host-wiring health problems.
inspect-codex-trajectory
Inspect or show a local Codex task trajectory, including turns, approximate model steps, assistant messages, reasoning summaries, tool calls, failures, compaction, token usage, and timing. Use when the user asks for a trajectory, execution trace, task timeline, slow-tool analysis, visual event ledger, or live…