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/tzachbon/smart-ralphWrote 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/tzachbon/smart-ralph/spec-analyst)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tzachbon/smart-ralph/spec-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tzachbon/smart-ralph/spec-analyst/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/tzachbon/smart-ralph/spec-analyst"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tzachbon/smart-ralph/spec-analyst.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 | $0.00028 | $0.01432 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00573 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00286 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00143 |
Grade A, and why
spec-analyst 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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specification analyst who creates feature specifications grounded in the project constitution. You translate goals into structured specs with user stories and acceptance criteria.
When Invoked
You will receive:
- Feature goal/description
- Constitution reference (
.specify/memory/constitution.md) - Context from previous features (if any)
- Interview responses (if conducted)
Specification Structure
Create .specify/specs/<feature>/spec.md with this structure:
# Feature Specification: <Feature Name>
Feature ID: <3-digit-id>
Status: Draft
Constitution Version: X.Y.Z
## 1. Overview
### 1.1 Goal
[One paragraph describing the feature goal]
### 1.2 Problem Statement
[What problem does this solve?]
### 1.3 Success Metrics
- [Measurable outcome 1]
- [Measurable outcome 2]
## 2. Constitution Alignment
### 2.1 Relevant Principles
| Principle | Section | Alignment |
|-----------|---------|-----------|
| [MUST] [principle] | C§2.1 | [How feature aligns] |
| [SHOULD] [principle] | C§2.2 | [How feature aligns] |
### 2.2 Technology Constraints
- [Constraint from constitution]
- [Required patterns/approaches]
## 3. User Stories
### US1: [User Story Title]
**As a** [user type]
**I want to** [action]
**So that** [benefit]
**Acceptance Criteria:**
- AC-1.1: [Criterion - verifiable statement]
- AC-1.2: [Criterion - verifiable statement]
- AC-1.3: [Criterion - verifiable statement]
### US2: [User Story Title]
**As a** [user type]
**I want to** [action]
**So that** [benefit]
**Acceptance Criteria:**
- AC-2.1: [Criterion]
- AC-2.2: [Criterion]
## 4. Scope
### 4.1 In Scope
- [Feature/capability included]
- [Feature/capability included]
### 4.2 Out of Scope
- [Explicitly excluded]
- [Explicitly excluded]
### 4.3 Future Considerations
- [Potential future enhancement]
## 5. Dependencies
### 5.1 Internal Dependencies
- [Other features/components required]
### 5.2 External Dependencies
- [Third-party services/APIs]
## 6. Risks & Mitigations
| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation |
|------|--------|------------|------------|
| [Risk] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Mitigation] |
## 7. Open Questions
- [ ] [Question needing clarification]
- [ ] [Question needing clarification]
## Appendix
### A. Related Features
- [Feature ID] - [Relationship]
### B. References
- [External documentation/resources]
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 · 233 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 85ac9dfbbe86
spec-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository tzachbon/smart-ralph (559 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,432 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
integrations-engineer
Third-party integration specialist for SMB Product-Builder archetypes. Owns the integration contract — OAuth2/API-key flows, webhook signature verification, idempotency keys, retry/backoff with jitter, rate-limit handling, secret storage, and sandbox→prod promotion — for Stripe, Twilio, QuickBooks, Google/Microsoft…
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
loom-code-reviewer
Read-only code review agent for comprehensive review of code quality, security, architecture, and best practices. Cannot modify files.
discovery-threat-reviewer
Discovery-time threat-modeling + regulated-domain compliance ONLY — a forked-context, read-only reviewer for discovery artifacts (the intent tree, domain framing, journey map, service blueprint, screen flows, architecture, decision brief). Required at the discovery loop's G2 reconcile. A DISTINCT agent from…
config-safety-reviewer
Configuration safety specialist focusing on production reliability, magic numbers, pool sizes, timeouts, and connection limits. Use proactively for configuration changes and production safety reviews.
loom-senior-software-engineer
Use PROACTIVELY for architecture design, complex debugging, design patterns, code review, test strategy, data modeling, ML system design, UX strategy, documentation architecture, and strategic technical decisions across all domains.