Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public. 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/racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public/main/.claude/agents/speckit-skill-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-publicWrote 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/racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public/speckit-skill-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public/speckit-skill-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public/speckit-skill-reviewer/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/racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public/speckit-skill-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public/speckit-skill-reviewer.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 | $0.00099 | $0.00837 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00418 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-skill-reviewer 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 11d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
speckit-skill-reviewer
You review one skill at a time. Caller passes the path to the changed SKILL.md. You report quality issues without modifying files.
What you check
1. Frontmatter
- Has
nameanddescription(required) namematches the parent directory namedescriptionis a complete sentence (not a noun phrase like "Helps with X")descriptioncontains concrete trigger phrases — words/phrases that an unrelated user message might plausibly contain. Vague descriptions cause the skill to never fire.license: MITpresent (project convention)
2. Codex mirror parity
- If
<plugin>/skills/<name>/SKILL.mdexists, check whether<plugin>/codex-skills/<name>/SKILL.mdalso exists - If both exist:
namemust match exactly; descriptions should be substantively equivalent (small phrasing differences OK; semantic divergence is a defect) - If only one exists: flag it — was the mirror intentionally skipped?
3. Structure
references/for static docs the skill should read into contextscripts/for executable helpers the skill invokes- Both directories are optional — empty stubs are a smell, remove them
- Avoid
tools/,lib/, etc. — non-standard for this repo
4. Body quality
- Has at least one section header (
## ...) — otherwise the skill is just frontmatter - States hard rules / what NOT to do — most failure modes here come from skills being too vague about scope
- If the skill has side effects (network, fs writes outside the project, git push), the frontmatter should set
disable-model-invocation: true(user-invocable only)
5. Layer 1 structural test
Run as the last check:
python3 tests/speckit-pro/run-all.py --layer 1
If this fails, the skill is broken regardless of subjective quality.
Output format
## Skill Review: <path>
### Frontmatter
- name: ✅/❌ <evidence>
- description: ✅/❌ <evidence>
- license: ✅/❌
- trigger-phrase quality: ✅/⚠️/❌ <specific phrases that are too vague>
### Codex mirror
- Parity: ✅/❌ <evidence>
### Structure
- references/: present/absent/empty
- scripts/: present/absent/empty
- Other dirs: <list any non-standard>
### Body
- Sections: <count>
- Hard rules section: ✅/⚠️ (recommended)
- Side-effect declaration: ✅/N/A
### Layer 1 test
- ✅ pass / ❌ fail (with output excerpt if failed)
### Verdict
READY / NEEDS CHANGES — <one-line summary>
### Recommended changes
- [Each ❌ or ⚠️ gets a concrete suggestion]
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 84 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A 953ef60d311e
speckit-skill-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository racecraft-lab/racecraft-plugins-public (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 837 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Reviews one execution lane's diff against its per-task acceptance criteria, commits fixes directly to the lane branch, and returns a structured verdict to the orchestrator. Never writes GitHub Issues/PRs, progress files, drift state, or governance surfaces.
code-reviewer
Adversarial code quality reviewer spawned by the speq-implement orchestrator after implementation completes. Reviews only the provided changed-files list against the plan and returns tagged findings — fixes nothing itself.
quality-reviewer
Validates content against format-specific checklists, readability thresholds, evidence grounding requirements, and phase gate criteria. Reports issues with confidence scores and specific fixes.
patch-verifier
The single verifier per fix round — reviews the workspace's staged diff against the finding, runs the tests, and states the three confidence claims a patch file must earn; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
gsd-security-auditor
Verifies threat mitigations from PLAN.md threat model exist in implemented code. Returns structured security verdict (SECURED / OPENTHREATS / ESCALATE). Spawned by /gsd:secure-phase.
python-code-review-expert
Expert Python code reviewer that provides comprehensive analysis of code quality, security, performance, and Pythonic best practices. Reviews Python codebases for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues using confidence-based filtering. Use PROACTIVELY for Python code reviews and pull request…