exfig: Command for Claude Code

.cursor/commands/opsx-verify.md

/opsx-verify is a command for Claude Code, Cursor from DesignPipe/exfig. It costs 14 tokens per session (1,414 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of OPSX: Verify, MIT.

A verification command for checking whether an implemented change matches its specifications, design, and task list. OpenSpec is a workflow for describing and tracking software changes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a change's artifacts, inspect its progress, and confirm that the implementation meets the documented requirements.
Why use it?
It finds differences between what was planned and what was built before the change is archived. It also shows unfinished implementation tasks.

Command for Claude CodeCursor

Written for Cursor and Claude Code: installed under .cursor/, but also a Claude Code command (commands/*.md). Also seen: names the AskUserQuestion tool.

This is DesignPipe/exfig's own configuration. It tells Claude Code and Cursor how to work on exfig itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything exfig configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to DesignPipe/exfig. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DesignPipe/exfig/main/.cursor/commands/opsx-verify.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DesignPipe/exfig

Made for: Claude Code, Cursor.

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 /opsx-verify

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/designpipe/exfig/opsx-verify/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/designpipe/exfig/opsx-verify)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/designpipe/exfig/opsx-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/designpipe/exfig/opsx-verify/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 /opsx-verify

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/designpipe/exfig/opsx-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/designpipe/exfig/opsx-verify.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 14 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,414 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 91% copy Near-identical to another mod 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 $0.00014 $0.01414
Opus 5.5 $0.00006 $0.00566
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00003 $0.00283
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00141

Measured 1mo ago against content hash c0a796407491, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

/opsx-verify 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.

Origin

This is a copy

91% identical to OPSX: Verify — 7 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.

.cursor/commands/opsx-verify.md · 166 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).

Input: Optionally specify a change name after /opsx:verify (e.g., /opsx:verify add-auth). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

  1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

    Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

    Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists). Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".

    IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

  2. Check status to understand the schema

    openspec status --change "<name>" --json
    

    Parse the JSON to understand:

    • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
    • Which artifacts exist for this change
  3. Get the change directory and load artifacts

    openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
    

    This returns the change directory and context files. Read all available artifacts from contextFiles.

  4. Initialize verification report structure

    Create a report structure with three dimensions:

    • Completeness: Track tasks and spec coverage
    • Correctness: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
    • Coherence: Track design adherence and pattern consistency

    Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.

  5. Verify Completeness

    Task Completion:

    • If tasks.md exists in contextFiles, read it
    • Parse checkboxes: - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete)
    • Count complete vs total tasks
    • If incomplete tasks exist:
      • Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
      • Recommendation: "Complete task: " or "Mark as done if already implemented"

    Spec Coverage:

    • If delta specs exist in openspec/changes/<name>/specs/:
      • Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
      • For each requirement:
        • Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
        • Assess if implementation likely exists
      • If requirements appear unimplemented:
        • Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: "
        • Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: "
  6. Verify Correctness

    Requirement Implementation Mapping:

    • For each requirement from delta specs:
      • Search codebase for implementation evidence
      • If found, note file paths and line ranges
      • Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
      • If divergence detected:
        • Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: "
        • Recommendation: "Review : against requirement X"

    Scenario Coverage:

    • For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
      • Check if conditions are handled in code
      • Check if tests exist covering the scenario
      • If scenario appears uncovered:
        • Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: "
        • Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: "
  7. Verify Coherence

    Design Adherence:

    • If design.md exists in contextFiles:
      • Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
      • Verify implementation follows those decisions
      • If contradiction detected:
        • Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: "
        • Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
    • If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"

    Code Pattern Consistency:

    • Review new code for consistency with project patterns
    • Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
    • If significant deviations found:
      • Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: "
      • Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: "

Read the full file on GitHub · 166 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. 1mo ago First seen · 166 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A c0a796407491

Subscribe to this mod's changes

/opsx-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository DesignPipe/exfig (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,414 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to OPSX: Verify, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.

Related

Other commands, from other repositories

figma-start

A command that prepares a designer's review branch from a developer's GitHub pull request. A pull request is a proposed set of code changes, and a branch is a separate line of project history.

naver/design-to-ui · 49 tokens

figma-apply

A command that applies changes from a Figma design file to the current design branch, then commits, pushes, and checks the project build. Figma is a tool for creating and sharing interface designs.

naver/design-to-ui · 31 tokens

handoff

A handoff command that creates a pull request from a designer's working branch to the developer's branch after design changes are ready for review. A pull request is a request to inspect and merge code changes.

naver/design-to-ui · 38 tokens

ux-audit

Audit a Figma file against a design brief — checks page structure, frame naming, sizes, styles, components, and content compliance.

Adityaraj0421/naksha-studio · 27 tokens

critique

Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation.

educlopez/ui-craft · 56 tokens

review-team

Parallel code review with 3 specialist lenses plus the kit-default kit:advisor extra lens. Dispatches the security, architecture, and test-coverage lenses simultaneously, adds the cross-cutting kit:advisor (critique mode), then merges findings.

dwarvesf/dwarves-kit · 49 tokens