Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to xetenet/xete-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xetenet/xete-mcp/main/.claude/skills/gate-retrospective/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xetenet/xete-mcpWrote 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/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-retrospective)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-retrospective"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-retrospective/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/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-retrospective"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xetenet/xete-mcp/gate-retrospective.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 | $0.00094 | $0.00841 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00168 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
gate-retrospective 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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Gate Retrospective
The gates review the code. This skill reviews the gates. A gate system that can't recognize its own failure modes decays into either theater (rubber-stamps) or friction (routed around) — both are silent.
Triggers, in priority order
- A shipped defect on a protected path — the gate's core failure. Run immediately.
- An open
gate-retrospectiveissue — the weekly audit found something. Run at session start. - Friction event — a gate blocked or slowed legitimate work in the current session (false-positive pattern, redundant ceremony). Run before session end; do not just note it.
- Monthly heartbeat — if none of the above fired in ~30 days, run
scripts/gate-audit.shmanually and retrospect on the output. Silence can mean health or mean routing-around; check which.
The loop
1. Gather evidence
Read the audit report (issue or fresh scripts/gate-audit.sh run), plus:
git log --oneline -- reviews/— DDR cadence and authorship- The specific friction/defect event if one triggered this
- Time cost: roughly how long did gates add to the last 3 gated merges?
2. Diagnose against the known failure modes
| Failure mode | Evidence | Direction of fix |
|---|---|---|
| Theater | Near-duplicate or thin DDRs, reflexive SHIP | Strengthen review requirements OR trim protected paths — pick one, never both |
| Friction | False-positive patterns, gates on non-critical paths | Narrow patterns; move enforcement later (PR-level, not commit-level) |
| Holes | Ungated commits on main, zero gate activity during contract work | Widen patterns, check branch protection toggles, check hooksPath on clones |
| Drift | Repo layout changed, patterns didn't | Re-derive patterns from current tree |
3. Doubt the fix (meta-DDR)
Changes to the gate system are themselves protected-path-grade: run doubt-driven-review on the proposed change. Key doubts to always raise:
- Does this fix weaken the gate to relieve friction? (Weakening is sometimes right, but must be named as such, never smuggled in as "tuning.")
- Does this fix add ceremony to relieve anxiety? (Also a failure.)
- Will this change survive contact with an unattended agent session, or does it assume a human in the loop?
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 · 48 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A ff99b9a5b770
gate-retrospective is a skill published in the GitHub repository xetenet/xete-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 841 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
legacy-shield
Secure zero-knowledge document vault for AI agents. Persistence for your secrets.
trace-mcp-refactoring
Safe refactoring workflow using trace-mcp — assess risk, find candidates, check impact, and rename symbols across all files without missing import sites or cross-file references.
zen-review
Expert code reviewer. Analyze PR changes for correctness, security, performance, and quality. Returns findings as JSON. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly requested to use it.
git-workflow
Follow this team's Git conventions for branching, commit messages, and pull requests.
m1nd-first
Use when investigating a repository, searching for implementation, reviewing changes, working from specs/docs, or preparing a risky code change in an environment where m1nd is available. This doctrine makes m1nd the first investigative layer before grep, glob, or manual file reads, except when the task is pure…
ironmesh-audit
Tail the tamper-evident IronMesh audit log for security events. Use when investigating a TOFU mismatch, auth failure, peer dropping out, or a suspected attack.