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 gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi --skill ce-review-betagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-piWrote 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/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/ce-review-beta)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/ce-review-beta"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/ce-review-beta/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/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/ce-review-beta"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/ce-review-beta.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 | $0.00040 | $0.08328 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.03331 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01666 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00833 |
Grade A, and why
ce:review-beta 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 1mo 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 — 507 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review (Beta)
Reviews code changes using dynamically selected reviewer personas. Spawns parallel sub-agents that return structured JSON, then merges and deduplicates findings into a single report.
When to Use
- Before creating a PR
- After completing a task during iterative implementation
- When feedback is needed on any code changes
- Can be invoked standalone
- Can run as a read-only or autonomous review step inside larger workflows
Mode Detection
Check $ARGUMENTS for mode:autonomous or mode:report-only. If either token is present, strip it from the remaining arguments before interpreting the rest as the PR number, GitHub URL, or branch name.
| Mode | When | Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive (default) | No mode token present | Review, present findings, ask for policy decisions when needed, and optionally continue into fix/push/PR next steps |
| Autonomous | mode:autonomous in arguments |
No user interaction. Review, apply only policy-allowed safe_auto fixes, re-review in bounded rounds, write a run artifact, and emit residual downstream work when needed |
| Report-only | mode:report-only in arguments |
Strictly read-only. Review and report only, then stop with no edits, artifacts, todos, commits, pushes, or PR actions |
Autonomous mode rules
- Skip all user questions. Never pause for approval or clarification once scope has been established.
- Apply only
safe_auto -> review-fixerfindings. Leavegated_auto,manual,human, andreleasework unresolved. - Write a run artifact under
.context/compound-engineering/ce-review-beta/<run-id>/summarizing findings, applied fixes, residual actionable work, and advisory outputs. - Create durable todo files only for unresolved actionable findings whose final owner is
downstream-resolver. Load thefile-todosskill for the canonical directory path and naming convention. - Never commit, push, or create a PR from autonomous mode. Parent workflows own those decisions.
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 507 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 8308a1adb0f4
ce:review-beta is a skill published in the GitHub repository gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi (52 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 8,328 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
code-review
Reviews code changes, pull requests, and diffs for correctness, security, performance, and style. Use when the user submits a PR for review, asks to review a diff or code snippet, or requests a quality check on recent changes.
pi-observability-local-dev
Use when developing or reviewing packages/pi-observability dashboard/server changes locally, especially rebuilding dist, restarting the 43190 server, validating UI behavior, or keeping the local dashboard in sync with source edits.
pi-package-sandbox-test
Use when verifying that published Pi packages install and load for normal users, including pi.dev package compatibility checks, release validation, Daytona sandbox tests, and package installability audits.
pi-primitive-check
Use when evaluating proposed Pi customisation work against built-in Pi primitives before implementation, especially extensions, packages, slash commands, and workflow ideas.
fabric-spec
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric spec supervisor that audits the main session against a feature design spec and steers only when a requirement lacks verified evidence. Use for strict, unblocked spec compliance while the main agent keeps full freedom to orchestrate.