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 toverux/cantrips --skill compound-refreshgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/toverux/cantripsWrote 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/toverux/cantrips/compound-refresh)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/toverux/cantrips/compound-refresh"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toverux/cantrips/compound-refresh/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/toverux/cantrips/compound-refresh"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/toverux/cantrips/compound-refresh.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00614 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00307 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
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 13d 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Audit the knowledge stores against the current codebase and prune what no longer earns its place.
Two stores: the project's AGENTS.md, always, and docs/solutions/ when the loop config enables it.
The loop config is docs/agents/cantrips-loop.md; when that doc is absent, the solutions store is off.
The opt-in docs/adr/ store stays out of scope by design — supersession is its own hygiene mechanism.
Every change is gated on the user, or on a deputy engaged in their place.
Scope
An argument narrows the sweep to matching docs/solutions/ docs — try it as a filename, then a frontmatter area/tags value, then a content keyword.
No argument → every doc plus AGENTS.md.
AGENTS.md is in scope on every run: when the solutions store is off, or no doc matches the argument, say so in one line and audit AGENTS.md alone.
Audit docs/solutions/
The format contract is ../compound/solutions-format.md.
For each doc in scope, cross-check its claims against the current code — cited paths and names still exist, the fix still matches how the code works today, snippets reflect the current implementation — and against its sibling docs for overlap and contradiction.
Verdict per file:
- Keep — still accurate and useful. No edit: reported as reviewed, zero churn.
- Update — the problem is still real but the doc drifted, from moved paths and renamed names up to a fix the current code now contradicts. On approval: evidence-backed in-place edits; on a contradicted fix, rewrite the doc to the current truth and present it as the rewrite it is.
- Consolidate — two docs overlap so heavily a maintainer must read both to get the truth. On approval: merge unique content into the canonical (broadest, most current) doc, delete the other.
- Delete — both the implementation and the problem domain are gone, or the doc is fully redundant. On approval: delete the file — git history is the archive.
Judgment rules:
- Match docs to reality, never the reverse. When code and doc disagree, the doc changes; whether the code should have changed is outside this skill.
- Age alone is clean. A two-year-old doc that still matches the code is a Keep; age only prompts a closer look.
- Unverifiable is not false. A claim the repo cannot corroborate — a schema fact, an operational practice, an environment behavior — is not thereby wrong; repos rarely witness their own operations. Never delete content, or strip it during a merge, solely because no in-repo artifact confirms it. Act only on contradiction, where the code demonstrably does otherwise; an unverifiable-but-plausible claim is a Keep with the verification gap noted in the report.
- Redundant needs a quoted artifact.
A doc is fully redundant only when a named in-repo artifact states its reasoning in its own text — a test, a code comment,
AGENTS.md, a sibling doc — and the verdict quotes it; topical overlap is not coverage. Reasoning only partly recoverable → Update instead: cut what the artifact states, point at it in one line, and keep the measured facts, cross-file invariants, and rejected alternatives nothing else records. - Shared code is not shared problem. Two accurate docs on different sub-problems stay separate even when they cite the same file.
- Contradictions between docs outrank staleness — they actively mislead. Resolve them first, via Consolidate or Update.
- Before a Delete, check the problem domain and the inbound links. Implementation gone but the domain still alive (the app still handles what the doc addresses) → Update to the current truth instead. Other markdown citing the doc substantively (relying on it for content not stated inline) → Update instead; decorative "see also" citations are cleaned up alongside the delete.
- Skip cosmetic churn. Typos and wording polish are edits without evidence value.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 13d ago Changed · +2 lines 74c031ced389
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines 8f554c43cca5
- 1mo ago Changed 279a0a7a7eda
- 1mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 1cb5f685cc42
compound-refresh is a skill published in the GitHub repository toverux/cantrips (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,536 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
context-canvas-checkpoint
Maintain an optional session task map and explicit retrievable references in Context Canvas Codex. Use when navigation or long-context offload would materially help with goals, decisions, progress, dependencies, blockers, next steps, exploration summaries, large textual tool results, or selective historical…
aitask-note
Send a durable note to an existing aitask — context that task needs which is not itself work. Use when you learn something a task that already exists depends on, such as a stale assumption in its body, a wider blast radius, or a decision that changes its approach.
yesloop
Autonomous task loop — analyze, plan, execute, verify, review, finish. Runs as visible TUI agent in git worktree. Use when user says "yesloop", "loop", "run it autonomously".
security-review
Use when reviewing code for vulnerabilities, checking diffs for injection/XSS/auth/crypto issues. Invokes on code changes (.go/.py/.js/.ts/.java/.rs/.php/.rb), not docs-only diffs.
cortex-memory
Persistent cognitive memory for AI agents — query, record, review, and consolidate knowledge across sessions with spreading activation, FSRS scheduling, and NLI contradiction detection.
git-pr-review
A read-only reviewer for GitHub pull requests, which are proposed code changes submitted for review. It produces an evidence-based report about whether a pull request should be merged.