speckit.chore.assess

speckit.chore.assess is a command for Claude Code from arrrrny/zuraffa. It costs 17 tokens per session (3,138 once invoked), scanned C, original, MIT.

A planning step for maintenance work in a codebase, such as refactoring, updating dependencies, changing configuration, or replacing branding assets. It records the affected files, scope, risks, and proposed approach in an assessment file.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to assess a maintenance request from written text or a web link, identify affected areas, judge risk, and prepare information for later implementation or pull-request steps.
Why use it?
It helps teams understand routine changes before implementation and keeps maintenance work separate from bug fixes and new features. It also checks the plan against the project constitution, the project’s governing rules.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: $ARGUMENTS substitution.

Good fit Use it to assess a maintenance request from written text or a web link, identify affected areas, judge risk, and prepare information for later implementation or pull-request steps.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.chore.assess
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arrrrny/zuraffa

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for speckit.chore.assess

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.chore.assess/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.chore.assess)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.chore.assess"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.chore.assess/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for speckit.chore.assess

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.chore.assess"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arrrrny/zuraffa/speckit.chore.assess.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 17 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 3,138 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan C 1 finding. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00017 $0.03138
Opus 5 $0.00009 $0.01569
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00628
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00314

Measured 10d ago against content hash e7a7251151a3, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade C, and why

speckit.chore.assess scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 10d 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.

Cloud metadata endpointhighServer-side request forgery

One request to 169.254.169.254 can return temporary IAM credentials.

- Cloud instance metadata endpoints: `169.254.169.254`, `metadata.google.internal`, `100.100.100.200`, `metadata.azure.com`.
.specify/extensions/chore/commands/speckit.chore.assess.md · 198 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Assess Chore

Scope a maintenance chore against the current codebase and the project constitution: understand what needs to change, locate the affected paths, judge scope and risk, and propose an approach. The output is a single assessment file at .specify/chores/<slug>/assessment.md that downstream commands (__SPECKIT_COMMAND_CHORE_IMPLEMENT__, __SPECKIT_COMMAND_CHORE_PR__) consume.

A chore is work that is neither a bug (something broken) nor a feature (new user-facing capability): refactors, dependency bumps, asset swaps, config cleanups, tooling changes, logo/branding updates, and similar maintenance. It lives in the same Spec Kit ecosystem as features and bugs — it is scoped, tracked, and recorded — but it is classified on its own so triage and reporting stay honest.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

The user input contains the chore description and (optionally) a slug. Treat it as one of:

  1. Pasted text — a copy of an issue, a chat message, a bullet, or a freeform description.
  2. A URL — a link to a GitHub/GitLab issue, a discussion, a design doc, or any web page describing the chore. Fetch and read the page content before proceeding.
  3. A mix — text plus a URL for additional context.
  4. An issue flagissue / --issue (or issue=true / issue=false). When present and truthy, this command also files a GitHub issue for the chore after writing the assessment (the "report" phase). See Optional — file the GitHub issue below.

If both a URL and text are present, fetch the URL and merge its content with the pasted text when forming the chore summary.

Slug Resolution

Each chore gets its own directory under .specify/chores/<slug>/. Resolve the slug in this order:

  1. User-provided slug: If the user explicitly passes a slug (e.g., slug=logo-swap, --slug logo-swap, or just an obvious slug-like token), use it verbatim after normalization (lowercase, hyphen-separated, no spaces, no special characters other than - and digits). Preserve the shape the user asked for — do not append timestamps or numbers.
  2. Interactive mode (a human is driving): If no slug was provided, ask the user for one and wait for the answer before continuing. Suggest a 2–4 word kebab-case candidate derived from the chore summary as a default.
  3. Automated / non-interactive mode (no human to ask): Generate a concise slug yourself from the chore summary (2–4 kebab-case words, e.g. logo-swap). The generated slug MUST produce a unique directory — if .specify/chores/<slug>/ already exists, append the shortest disambiguating suffix needed (-2, -3, …) or a short ISO-style date (-20260605) to make it unique. Never overwrite an existing chore directory.

Read the full file on GitHub · 198 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 10d ago First seen · 198 lines · 17 tokens per session scan C e7a7251151a3

Subscribe to this mod's changes

speckit.chore.assess is a command published in the GitHub repository arrrrny/zuraffa (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 3,138 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (cloud metadata endpoint). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.