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 document-reviewgit 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/document-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/document-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/document-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/document-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/document-review.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 | $0.00035 | $0.01968 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00787 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00394 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00197 |
Grade A, and why
document-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 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 — 201 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Document Review
Review requirements or plan documents through multi-persona analysis. Dispatches specialized reviewer agents in parallel, auto-fixes quality issues, and presents strategic questions for user decision.
Phase 1: Get and Analyze Document
If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed.
If no document is specified: Ask which document to review, or find the most recent in docs/brainstorms/ or docs/plans/ using a file-search/glob tool (e.g., Glob in Claude Code).
Classify Document Type
After reading, classify the document:
- requirements -- from
docs/brainstorms/, focuses on what to build and why - plan -- from
docs/plans/, focuses on how to build it with implementation details
Select Conditional Personas
Analyze the document content to determine which conditional personas to activate. Check for these signals:
product-lens -- activate when the document contains:
- User-facing features, user stories, or customer-focused language
- Market claims, competitive positioning, or business justification
- Scope decisions, prioritization language, or priority tiers with feature assignments
- Requirements with user/customer/business outcome focus
design-lens -- activate when the document contains:
- UI/UX references, frontend components, or visual design language
- User flows, wireframes, screen/page/view mentions
- Interaction descriptions (forms, buttons, navigation, modals)
- References to responsive behavior or accessibility
security-lens -- activate when the document contains:
- Auth/authorization mentions, login flows, session management
- API endpoints exposed to external clients
- Data handling, PII, payments, tokens, credentials, encryption
- Third-party integrations with trust boundary implications
scope-guardian -- activate when the document contains:
- Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2, must-have/should-have/nice-to-have)
- Large requirement count (>8 distinct requirements or implementation units)
- Stretch goals, nice-to-haves, or "future work" sections
- Scope boundary language that seems misaligned with stated goals
- Goals that don't clearly connect to requirements
What ships with it
3 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 · 201 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A c4c034702aff
document-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi (52 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,968 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
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.
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.
pi
Use when needing a minimal, extensible terminal AI coding agent harness in TypeScript with plugin architecture. Pi: minimalist terminal AI coding agent emphasizing simplicity and composability.
execute-harness
Use when running an existing /tmp Pi task harness. Executes inside the active contract, records status, respects enforcement, and loops through validation.