cc-sdd is a spec-driven development workflow for coding agents: it turns approved software specifications into requirements, designs, task plans, and extended autonomous implementation. Developers use it across several AI coding agents, with independent review and task-level continuation for long-running work. The catalogue entries provide commands, skills, agents, and instructions for using this workflow.
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/gotalab/cc-sddWrote 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/commands/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-gap)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-gap"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-gap/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/commands/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-gap"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-gap.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00845 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00338 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
kiro-validate-gap 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.
Copies of this mod
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- kiro-validate-gap — 95% identical, 8 lines differ
- validate-gap — 86% identical, 21 lines differ
- validate-gap — 86% identical, 21 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implementation Gap Validation
<background_information>
- Mission: Analyze the gap between requirements and existing codebase to inform implementation strategy
- Success Criteria:
- Comprehensive understanding of existing codebase patterns and components
- Clear identification of missing capabilities and integration challenges
- Multiple viable implementation approaches evaluated
- Technical research needs identified for design phase </background_information>
Execution Steps
-
Load Context:
- Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/spec.jsonfor language and metadata - Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/requirements.mdfor requirements - Load ALL steering context: Read entire
{{KIRO_DIR}}/steering/directory including:- Default files:
structure.md,tech.md,product.md - All custom steering files (regardless of mode settings)
- This provides complete project memory and context
- Default files:
- Read
-
Read Analysis Guidelines:
- Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/settings/rules/gap-analysis.mdfor comprehensive analysis framework
- Read
-
Execute Gap Analysis:
- Follow gap-analysis.md framework for thorough investigation
- Analyze existing codebase using Grep and Read tools
- Use WebSearch/WebFetch for external dependency research if needed
- Evaluate multiple implementation approaches (extend/new/hybrid)
- Use language specified in spec.json for output
-
Generate Analysis Document:
- Create comprehensive gap analysis following the output guidelines in gap-analysis.md
- Present multiple viable options with trade-offs
- Flag areas requiring further research
Important Constraints
- Information over Decisions: Provide analysis and options, not final implementation choices
- Multiple Options: Present viable alternatives when applicable
- Thorough Investigation: Use tools to deeply understand existing codebase
- Explicit Gaps: Clearly flag areas needing research or investigation
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 · 90 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4b7a0e9d4cbd
kiro-validate-gap is a command published in the GitHub repository gotalab/cc-sdd (3,731 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 845 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
review-hard
Review the current task changes for correctness, safety, and maintainability risks before slice closure or PR prep, and recommend the smallest safe next step. Use when a slice or task-level implementation was completed, the user wants a focused engineering risk review before closure or PR prep, or meaningful issues…
incident-triage
Triage a concrete technical failure (stack trace, failing test, runtime symptom, production alert), classify it and pick a fix size (HOTFIX/SLICE/INVESTIGATION/ESCALATE). Use when there is concrete failure evidence, an active task folder exists, and urgency is real or unclear, or hotfix versus full flow is unclear. Do…
code-locate
Locate code paths and line ranges for a described behavior: up to 10 candidates with HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence and a search trail, plus a proposed SOURCEOFTRUTH.md update. Use when the first question is where one specific behavior lives and paths are unknown. Do not use when paths are explicit, the codebase is tiny…
im-stuck
Break the task out of a loop, confusion state, or false progress and find the fastest safe path forward, routing to a recovery command and editor mode. Use when progress loops or stalls, questions repeat, the wrong command or mode may be in use, or the user is unsure if it is technical, workflow, or scope. Do not use…
state-reconcile
Detect drift between TASKSTATE.md, task artifacts, and reality (code, tests, diff), then propose the minimum updates. Also has an opt-in read-only memory-lint mode. Use when TASKSTATE.md is stale or inconsistent, plan or slice files disagree, you need a full cross-check before routing or delivery, or you want a…
foundation-audit
Compare design tokens in code against foundation docs and optionally Figma variables to detect drift (undocumented tokens, tokens missing in code, value mismatches). Use when the design system has evolved and foundations need a sync check. Do not use when no foundation docs exist (run design-bootstrap first).