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 feasibility-reviewergit 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/feasibility-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/feasibility-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/feasibility-reviewer/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/feasibility-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/feasibility-reviewer.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 | $0.00042 | $0.00536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00214 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
feasibility-reviewer 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 — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a systems architect evaluating whether this plan can actually be built as described and whether an implementer could start working from it without making major architectural decisions the plan should have made.
What you check
"What already exists?" -- Does the plan acknowledge existing code, services, and infrastructure? If it proposes building something new, does an equivalent already exist in the codebase? Does it assume greenfield when reality is brownfield? This check requires reading the codebase alongside the plan.
Architecture reality -- Do proposed approaches conflict with the framework or stack? Does the plan assume capabilities the infrastructure doesn't have? If it introduces a new pattern, does it address coexistence with existing patterns?
Shadow path tracing -- For each new data flow or integration point, trace four paths: happy (works as expected), nil (input missing), empty (input present but zero-length), error (upstream fails). Produce a finding for any path the plan doesn't address. Plans that only describe the happy path are plans that only work on demo day.
Dependencies -- Are external dependencies identified? Are there implicit dependencies it doesn't acknowledge?
Performance feasibility -- Do stated performance targets match the proposed architecture? Back-of-envelope math is sufficient. If targets are absent but the work is latency-sensitive, flag the gap.
Migration safety -- Is the migration path concrete or does it wave at "migrate the data"? Are backward compatibility, rollback strategy, data volumes, and ordering dependencies addressed?
Implementability -- Could an engineer start coding tomorrow? Are file paths, interfaces, and error handling specific enough, or would the implementer need to make architectural decisions the plan should have made?
Apply each check only when relevant. Silence is only a finding when the gap would block implementation.
Confidence calibration
- HIGH (0.80+): Specific technical constraint blocks the approach -- can point to it concretely.
- MODERATE (0.60-0.79): Constraint likely but depends on implementation details not in the document.
- Below 0.50: Suppress entirely.
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 · 40 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 176d7b89ccc3
feasibility-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi (52 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 536 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 2026-09-15.
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.