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 Rockielab/rockie-claude --skill post-run-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Rockielab/rockie-claudeWrote 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/rockielab/rockie-claude/post-run-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rockielab/rockie-claude/post-run-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rockielab/rockie-claude/post-run-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/rockielab/rockie-claude/post-run-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rockielab/rockie-claude/post-run-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 | $0.00091 | $0.01001 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00500 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00200 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
post-run-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 12d 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:
- post-run-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/post-run-review — structured Assess → Codify
Ports the AIDE submit_review pattern (MIT, aide/agent.py L19–44 +
parse_exec_result L296–339). Ours adds the C4 failure-class
classification — bug | bad-hyperparam | bad-hypothesis — which no
other autonomous-research harness currently cleanly separates.
When to invoke
Automatically, as the final step of the Assess phase, after any
experiment with a journal node (journal.py add … was called at Plan
time). Don't invoke on trivial scripts.
What the skill does
Given:
- Journal node id (
--node N) - Log / stdout from the run (
--log PATH) - Optional metric override (
--metric NAME=VAL)
The agent reads the log, forms a structured verdict, and writes:
{
"is_buggy": 0 | 1,
"failure_class": null | "bug" | "bad-hyperparam" | "bad-hypothesis",
"metric_name": "val_loss",
"metric_value": 3.42,
"lower_is_better": 1,
"summary": "one-paragraph what-happened",
"learn_block": "<optional [LEARN] emitted separately>",
"dead_end_block": "<optional [DEAD-END] emitted separately>"
}
and then:
- Calls
journal.py close <node> --metric ... --is-buggy ... --failure-class ... --analysis "...". - If
is_buggy=1and it's a clear durable rule: emits a[LEARN]block in its response (Stop hook captures it). - If
failure_class=bad-hypothesis: emits a[DEAD-END]block. - If
actual_deltafor this run was predicted:calibration.py close <run_id> "<hypothesis>" <actual>.
Failure-class meanings (IMPORTANT)
| class | means | action |
|---|---|---|
bug |
implementation error (shape mismatch, off-by-one, NaN from wrong init) | fix the code, retry; emit [LEARN] with the gotcha |
bad-hyperparam |
logic is sound but config misses (lr too high, batch wrong, seed bad) | tune; keep the hypothesis alive |
bad-hypothesis |
idea itself doesn't work at the scale tested | emit [DEAD-END]; do NOT re-propose this direction |
Mis-classifying a bad-hypothesis as a bug will cause the agent to
loop on a fundamentally broken idea. Mis-classifying a bug as a
bad-hypothesis will kill directions that would have worked after a
fix. Be honest. When uncertain, prefer bad-hyperparam — it keeps the
option open and triggers the cheapest next action (tune).
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 90 lines · 91 tokens per session scan A a28d4ce2025b
post-run-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Rockielab/rockie-claude (21 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 1,001 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
autoresearch
Orchestrates end-to-end autonomous AI research projects using a two-loop architecture. The inner loop runs rapid experiment iterations with clear optimization targets. The outer loop synthesizes results, identifies patterns, and steers research direction. Routes to domain-specific skills for execution, supports…
release-doi
A release procedure for research repositories that publish versions with a DOI, a permanent identifier for scholarly work, through Zenodo.
content-refinement-agent
Step 5 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Iteratively refine drafts/paper.tex by simulating peer review and applying targeted revisions, with strict accept/revert halt rules, deterministic 0-100 decision bands (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject) that drive a target-met early stop, and a Devil's Advocate…
section-writing-agent
Step 4 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). ONE single multimodal LLM call that drafts the remaining paper sections (Abstract, Methodology, Experiments, Conclusion), extracts numeric values from experimentallog.md into LaTeX booktabs tables, splices the generated figures from Step 2, and merges…
plotting-agent
Step 2 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the visualization plan from outline.json — render plots and conceptual diagrams from experimentallog.md and idea.md, optionally refine via VLM critique loop, and produce context-aware captions. Runs in parallel with the literature-review-agent. TRIGGER…
outline-agent
Step 1 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Convert (idea.md, experimentallog.md, template.tex, conferenceguidelines.md) into a strict JSON outline containing a plotting plan, literature search plan (Intro + Related Work), and section-level writing plan with citation hints. TRIGGER when the orchestrator…