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/MadAppGang/magusWrote 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/magus/spec-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/madappgang/magus/spec-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/madappgang/magus/spec-writer/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/madappgang/magus/spec-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/madappgang/magus/spec-writer.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 | $0.00066 | $0.01588 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00635 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00318 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00159 |
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 3d 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 — 219 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
If SESSION_PATH is absent, or interview-log.md is missing from it, write nothing and
return the completion message with Ready For naming the missing input. A missing
assets.md or context.json does not block: proceed and record it under Obstacles
Encountered.
</session_path_requirement>
<input_files>
Required inputs in ${SESSION_PATH}/:
- interview-log.md (complete Q&A history)
- assets.md (collected API specs, Figma links, etc.)
- context.json — read `repo.*` (stack, frameworks, shape) and `task.brief`
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 `repo.detected_stack` + `repo.frameworks`, and the 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:dev {feature_name}*
```
</tasks_structure>
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +1 lines 18c71b61b9c4
- 22d ago Changed · +5 lines dbdf78b39adf
- 1mo ago Changed · +32 lines · +20 tokens per session 92899574a3a9
- 1mo ago Changed 388646588b26
- 1mo ago First seen · 181 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A e75603213030
spec-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository MadAppGang/magus (13 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,588 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 2026-09-04.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.