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 willdady/platypus --skill retrogit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/willdady/platypusWrote 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/willdady/platypus/retro)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/willdady/platypus/retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/willdady/platypus/retro/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/willdady/platypus/retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/willdady/platypus/retro.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 | $0.00010 | $0.00953 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00381 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
retro 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
84% identical to retro — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The user has asked for a retrospective. You are suggesting improvements to the coding agent's environment to improve future runs.
Steps
-
Call the Skill tool with
writing-for-agentsfor the writing style guide. -
Read the primary sources for the session the user specifies. This may mean searching through session logs on this machine. If the user doesn't specify a session, default to the current one.
-
Look for candidates for improvement in these categories.
- Navigation: how easy was it for the agent to find the right files? Are there hidden dependencies between files? Would a navigation pointer make it easier? Use when the session took a long time to find a piece of information.
- Automated checks: are there automated checks that could catch errors the agent made? Linting, typing, tests, filesystem linters? Read the repo's own check command first (its
package.json/build-toollint/checkscripts, its CI workflow), so a check that already exists but sits unwired or silently broken is the finding, not a reinvention. A repo with no guardrail (no pre-commit hook and no CI job running its lint/typecheck/test command) is itself a finding: an un-linted repo is a standing missed opportunity, not a neutral default. Use when the agent made a mistake an automated check could have caught, or the repo has no guardrail at all. - Coding standards: should the reviewer agent be given a new rule to enforce? Should an existing rule be removed or clarified? Classify the violation first: a mechanical one (a fixed syntactic pattern, a banned API, an import shape, a file-location rule) gets a deterministic check, full stop: a custom rule in the repo's own linter, a new pre-commit hook, or a new CI job, whichever the repo's language and existing guardrail make cheapest. Default to building the check over writing the rule. Reserve
CODING_STANDARDS.mdfor genuine judgement calls (cross-file consistency, "matches the surrounding style," anything no guardrail could ever substitute for). Use when the reviewer agent failed to catch a mistake. - Global AGENTS.md: are there any steering instructions that should be moved to coding standards (or automated checks) instead? Use when the AGENTS.md file is particularly large - in the repo OR the user's global scope.
- Tool economy: did the agent make expensive tool calls that could be streamlined? Is there any custom tooling (CLI's, MCP's) that is particularly token-inefficient? Use when the agent made an expensive tool call.
- No-ops: look for instructions in steering files that don't modify the agent's behavior. Use when the steering files are large and unwieldy.
- Information access: look for opportunities to increase the agent's access to information. Teeing dev server logs, readonly access to third-party services. Use when a crucial piece of information was not available to the agent.
- Present these candidates to the user, in order of severity.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 45 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 33fbc28568e3
retro is a skill published in the GitHub repository willdady/platypus (120 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 953 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to retro, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. 4-phase root cause investigation — NO fixes without understanding the problem first.
self-map
Your evidence and how you work: one Trace turn to its cause and whose it is (owner side, the Version, outside); spend, schedules, failures, the journal, docs; what Stop, Interrupt or a break leave; where to look before asking. Load in an Insight turn with failures, when the owner asks what you did, why it failed, what…
report-problem
A troubleshooting procedure for a broken Iva assistant, schedule, tool, or delivery. It collects a diagnostic report, checks recent logs and facts, and prepares either an issue report or a support-chat message.
post-rollback-diagnose
On-demand diagnózis egy sikertelen frissítés + auto-rollback után. A dashboard "Frissítés diagnózisa" gombja indítja (opt-in). NEM cron-vezérelt.
code-review
A method for reviewing code, bugs, diffs, branches, and pull requests. A diff is the set of changes between two versions of code, and a pull request is a proposed change submitted for review.
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.