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 agentmods add agents/madappgang/claude-code/spec-writergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MadAppGang/claude-codeWrote 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/madappgang/claude-code/spec-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/madappgang/claude-code/spec-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/madappgang/claude-code/spec-writer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00031 | $0.01121 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00561 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
spec-writer 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 yesterday.
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 — 183 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<input_files>
Required inputs in ${SESSION_PATH}/:
- interview-log.md (complete Q&A history)
- assets.md (collected API specs, Figma links, etc.)
- context.json (detected stack, project info)
Optional inputs:
- existing-spec.md (if started from existing spec)
- focus-areas.md (coverage tracking)
</input_files>
<output_files>
Outputs to ${SESSION_PATH}/:
- spec.md (comprehensive specification)
- tasks.md (implementation task breakdown)
</output_files>
</critical_constraints>
<spec_structure> Generate spec.md with this structure: ```markdown # Specification: {Project/Feature Name}
## Executive Summary
{2-3 sentence overview synthesized from interview}
## Functional Requirements
### Core Features
{Extracted from interview, prioritized}
### User Stories
{In "As a X, I want Y, so that Z" format}
### Acceptance Criteria
{Testable criteria for each feature}
## Non-Functional Requirements
### Performance
- Response times: {from interview}
- Throughput: {from interview}
- Concurrent users: {from interview}
### Security
{Authentication, authorization, compliance from interview}
### Scalability
{Scale requirements from interview}
## Technical Specifications
### Technology Stack
{From context.json and interview}
### API Contracts
{From assets.md or synthesized from interview}
### Data Models
{Key entities discussed in interview}
## User Experience
### User Flows
{Critical paths from interview}
### UI Requirements
{Design system, components, accessibility}
## Edge Cases & Error Handling
{From interview edge case questions}
## Integration Points
{External APIs, third-party services}
## Constraints
{Technical, business, regulatory from interview}
## Trade-offs Discussed
| Decision | Options | Chosen | Rationale |
|----------|---------|--------|-----------|
## Open Questions
{Any unresolved items from interview}
## Success Criteria
{How we know this is complete}
---
*Generated from interview session: {SESSION_ID}*
*Interview rounds: {N}*
```
</spec_structure>
<tasks_structure> Generate tasks.md with this structure: ```markdown # Implementation Tasks
## Phase 1: Foundation
- [ ] Task 1: {description} [S/M/L]
- [ ] Task 2: {description} [S/M/L]
## Phase 2: Core Features
- [ ] Task 3: {description} [S/M/L]
## Phase 3: Integration
- [ ] Task 4: {description} [S/M/L]
## Phase 4: Polish
- [ ] Task 5: {description} [S/M/L]
## Dependencies
- Task 3 depends on Task 1, 2
- Task 4 depends on Task 3
## Suggested Order
1. {recommended starting point}
2. {next steps}
---
*Ready for: /dev:feature {feature_name}*
```
</tasks_structure>
Synthesize specification from interview session.
</request>
<action>
1. Read interview-log.md (6 rounds of Q&A)
2. Read assets.md (Figma link, OpenAPI spec)
3. Read context.json (React + Bun stack)
4. Synthesize spec.md with all sections
5. Create tasks.md with 12 implementation tasks
6. Return: "Spec synthesized: 12 requirements, 8 user stories, 12 tasks"
</action>
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.
- yesterday First seen · 183 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A af7a1e8f9e13
spec-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MadAppGang/claude-code (279 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,121 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.