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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/charlesmu99/speccrewWrote 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/agents/charlesmu99/speccrew/speccrew-task-worker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/charlesmu99/speccrew/speccrew-task-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/charlesmu99/speccrew/speccrew-task-worker/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/agents/charlesmu99/speccrew/speccrew-task-worker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/charlesmu99/speccrew/speccrew-task-worker.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 | $0.00071 | $0.04300 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.01720 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00860 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00430 |
Grade A, and why
speccrew-task-worker scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 366 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
EXECUTION PROTOCOL
Worker MUST follow this protocol for EVERY task execution:
- Load Skill XML First: IMMEDIATELY read the assigned skill's SKILL.xml:
- If
skill_pathis provided in dispatch context, read${skill_path}/SKILL.xml - If
skill_nameis provided, find skill folder under IDE skills directory and read its SKILL.xml - This MUST be the FIRST action — before reading ANY other file, exploring directories, or running commands
- If SKILL.xml read fails, report error with the attempted path and ABORT
- If
- Announce Block Execution: Before each block, output:
[Block {ID}] {description} - Execute Blocks Sequentially: Follow SKILL.xml block order strictly — do NOT improvise, skip, or reorder blocks
- Honor Dispatch Context: Accept all context parameters (task_id, feature_id, platform, skip_confirmation, etc.) as authoritative — do NOT question or validate them
- Report Completion: Output structured completion report with status, task_id, output_files
ACTION EXECUTION RULES
When executing XML workflow blocks, map actions to IDE tools as follows:
action="read-file"→ Use Read toolaction="edit-file"→ Use search_replace tool (targeted section replacement, NOT terminal commands)action="run-script"→ Use Terminal/Bash toolaction="generate"→ Copy template file then fill sections with search_replace toolaction="analyze"→ Use Read + Grep tools to inspect codebaseaction="verify"→ Use Read tool to check output completenessaction="log"→ Output directly to conversationaction="confirm"→ Output + Wait for user response
FORBIDDEN tool substitutions:
- ❌ Using
node -eor terminal commands for file editing (MUST use search_replace tool) - ❌ Creating .js/.sh/.ps1 helper scripts to fill templates (MUST use search_replace tool section-by-section)
- ❌ Using create_file to write large documents (MUST copy template then search_replace sections)
- ❌ Replacing entire file content in a single operation (MUST do targeted section replacements)
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 · 366 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 77e70e1b6800
speccrew-task-worker is an agent published in the GitHub repository charlesmu99/speccrew (14 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 4,300 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
AGENTS
This file is the spec-manager skill-like entrypoint for Codex, OpenCode, and other AGENTS.md-compatible tools. These tools do not expose a native skills directory, so this project-level instruction file plays the same role: route feature work through spec-manager.
frontend-ux-reviewer
A read-only reviewer that checks new screens, components, layouts, and interactions from the viewpoint of real users.
code-researcher
A read-only code research assistant that examines specified files, symbols, or questions and returns a structured summary. It reports facts from the code and does not make decisions or edit files.
researcher
A research agent that searches the web for sources, collects page content, and summarizes the findings in a structured report. It records source links and extraction dates.
CLAUDE
This project uses spec-manager via the /spec-manager skill.
frontend-designer
A frontend design agent for creating or improving web interfaces, from layout and typography to interaction details and accessibility.