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 agentmods add skills/marcusrbrown/systematic/ce-compound-refreshnpx skills add marcusrbrown/systematic --skill ce-compound-refreshgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/marcusrbrown/systematicWhat 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 | $0.00105 | $0.09991 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.04995 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01998 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00999 |
Grade A, and why
ce:compound-refresh 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 3d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- ce:compound-refresh — 92% identical, 16 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 681 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Compound Refresh
Maintain the quality of docs/solutions/ over time. This workflow reviews existing learnings against the current codebase, then refreshes any derived pattern docs that depend on them.
Mode Detection
Check if $ARGUMENTS contains mode:autofix. If present, strip it from arguments (use the remainder as a scope hint) and run in autofix mode.
| Mode | When | Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive (default) | User is present and can answer questions | Ask for decisions on ambiguous cases, confirm actions |
| Autofix | mode:autofix in arguments |
No user interaction. Apply all unambiguous actions (Keep, Update, Consolidate, auto-Delete, Replace with sufficient evidence). Mark ambiguous cases as stale. Generate a summary report at the end. |
Autofix mode rules
- Skip all user questions. Never pause for input.
- Process all docs in scope. No scope narrowing questions — if no scope hint was provided, process everything.
- Attempt all safe actions: Keep (no-op), Update (fix references), Consolidate (merge and delete subsumed doc), auto-Delete (unambiguous criteria met), Replace (when evidence is sufficient). If a write succeeds, record it as applied. If a write fails (e.g., permission denied), record the action as recommended in the report and continue — do not stop or ask for permissions.
- Mark as stale when uncertain. If classification is genuinely ambiguous (Update vs Replace vs Consolidate vs Delete) or Replace evidence is insufficient, mark as stale with
status: stale,stale_reason, andstale_datein the frontmatter. If even the stale-marking write fails, include it as a recommendation. - Use conservative confidence. In interactive mode, borderline cases get a user question. In autofix mode, borderline cases get marked stale. Err toward stale-marking over incorrect action.
- Always generate a report. The report is the primary deliverable. It has two sections: Applied (actions that were successfully written) and Recommended (actions that could not be written, with full rationale so a human can apply them or run the skill interactively). The report structure is the same regardless of what permissions were granted — the only difference is which section each action lands in.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 681 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 6d61dbcbb7f9
ce:compound-refresh is a skill published in the GitHub repository marcusrbrown/systematic (24 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 9,991 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
plan-protocol
Guidelines for creating and managing implementation plans with citations.
plan-review
Criteria for reviewing implementation plans against quality standards.
code-review
Comprehensive code review methodology with severity classification and confidence thresholds.
code-philosophy
Internal logic and data flow philosophy (The 5 Laws of Elegant Defense). Understand deeply to ensure code guides data naturally and prevents errors.
frontend-philosophy
Visual & UI philosophy (The 5 Pillars of Intentional UI). Understand deeply to avoid "AI slop" and create distinctive, memorable interfaces.
opencode-ensemble
Use when coordinating multiple coding agents, delegating independent software work, managing OpenCode Ensemble teams, choosing teammate roles or models, reviewing teammate output, or deciding whether parallel execution is appropriate.