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 | $0.00020 | $0.04164 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
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.
- 10d 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 (51 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 8,328 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use…
improve-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
lsp-validation
Use Language Server Protocol tools for code validation, navigation, and refactoring. Essential for maintaining code quality.
improve-codebase-architecture
Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
review
Use when the user wants code assessed rather than changed — "review PR 88", "is this branch ready to merge?", "look over my changes", "any problems with this diff?", "give me a code review", "what do you think of this PR?", "sanity-check this branch", "ship it?". Applies to a pull request or the current branch when…