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/mick-gsk/drift/speckit.clarifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mick-gsk/driftWrote 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/mick-gsk/drift/speckit.clarify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mick-gsk/drift/speckit.clarify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mick-gsk/drift/speckit.clarify.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 | $0.00027 | $0.02954 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01477 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00591 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00295 |
Grade A, and why
speckit.clarify 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 4d 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
100% identical to speckit.clarify — 2 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 — 248 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Pre-Execution Checks
Check for extension hooks (before clarification):
- Check if
.specify/extensions.ymlexists in the project root. - If it exists, read it and look for entries under the
hooks.before_clarifykey - If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
- Filter out hooks where
enabledis explicitlyfalse. Treat hooks without anenabledfield as enabled by default. - For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook
conditionexpressions:- If the hook has no
conditionfield, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable - If the hook defines a non-empty
condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
- If the hook has no
- For each executable hook, output the following based on its
optionalflag:- Optional hook (
optional: true):## Extension Hooks **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension} Command: `/{command}` Description: {description} Prompt: {prompt} To execute: `/{command}` - Mandatory hook (
optional: false):## Extension Hooks **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension} Executing: `/{command}` EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Outline.
- Optional hook (
- If no hooks are registered or
.specify/extensions.ymldoes not exist, skip silently
Outline
Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.
Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking /speckit.plan. If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases.
Execution steps:
- Run
.specify/scripts/powershell/check-prerequisites.ps1 -Json -PathsOnlyfrom repo root once (combined--json --paths-onlymode /-Json -PathsOnly). Parse minimal JSON payload fields:FEATURE_DIRFEATURE_SPEC- (Optionally capture
IMPL_PLAN,TASKSfor future chained flows.) - If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run
/speckit.specifyor verify feature branch environment. - For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 248 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 97b14836d617
speckit.clarify is an agent published in the GitHub repository mick-gsk/drift (14 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 2,954 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to speckit.clarify, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
_arena-protocol
For each story, spawn 2-3 independent agent runs.
Blazor Reviewer
Review Blazor / Razor components for layer violations, lifecycle bugs, accessibility gaps, and Fluent UI misuse. Use for PR reviews on .razor / .razor.cs files.
Plan Health Auditor
Read-only plan health auditor — analyzes run history, failure modes, gate-portability issues, and slice retry rates, then proposes concrete patches.
Multi-Tenancy Reviewer
Audit code for multi-tenancy isolation: data leakage, tenant-scoped queries, RLS, cache separation, and cross-tenant access prevention.
Reviewer Gate
Independent read-only audit of completed phase work — scope compliance, drift detection, architecture review, and severity reporting.
Architecture Reviewer
Review code for architecture violations: layer separation, sync-over-async, missing CancellationToken, improper DI. Use for PR reviews or code audits.