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.
npx agentmods add commands/gregorbiswanger/featherspec/sdd-clarifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GregorBiswanger/featherspecWrote 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/gregorbiswanger/featherspec/sdd-clarify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/gregorbiswanger/featherspec/sdd-clarify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/gregorbiswanger/featherspec/sdd-clarify.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.01014 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00507 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
sdd-clarify 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 4d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/sdd-clarify — Adversarial Spec Review
The user may name a spec path after the command. If none is given — or the named path does
not exist — list what sits under .specs/ and ask which one to review.
Read it as a stranger
If this session wrote or discussed the spec, do not review it here. Delegate to a
subagent that receives only the spec path and AGENTS.md, or tell the user to run this in a
fresh session — in-context knowledge cannot be unread. Only if neither is possible, fall back
to role-play:
Assume no conversation history. Whatever was discussed while the spec was written is not available to you and must not be inferred — if you find yourself filling a gap from context, that gap is exactly what you are here to report. The context that produced an ambiguity is the worst placed to find it; your only advantage is that you were not there.
Read the spec, and read AGENTS.md for the constraints it must respect. Read the code the spec
touches only when you need it to judge whether a claim is decidable. Do not read the plan — a
plan that already resolved an ambiguity would hide it from you.
List, do not resolve
Your job is to find, not to fix. Do not rewrite the spec, do not propose wording, do not answer your own findings. A model asked to resolve ambiguity resolves it silently with whatever is statistically plausible; that is the failure this command exists to catch.
Produce exactly six lists, in DocLanguage. Quote the spec. An empty list is a real and
useful answer — say "none found" rather than manufacturing an item.
1. Contradictions
Two statements that cannot both hold. Look hardest between sections that are rarely read together: a business rule against an acceptance criterion, an out-of-scope entry against a functional requirement, a non-functional limit against the main flow.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 89 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A bb09427ac157
sdd-clarify is a command published in the GitHub repository GregorBiswanger/featherspec (45 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,014 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
spec-kitty-standalone
This host should read Spec Kitty's canonical standalone-invocation skill pack at.
spec-kitty.analyze
Spec-Driven Development for serious software developers. Spec Coding with with Claude, Cursor, Gemini, Codex. Kanban dashboard, git worktrees, auto-merge and more.
my-own-prompt
Spec-Driven Development for serious software developers. Spec Coding with with Claude, Cursor, Gemini, Codex. Kanban dashboard, git worktrees, auto-merge and more.
plan
Run /plan — see .claude/commands/plan.md for the authoritative spec.
speckit.assess.decide
Command "speckit.assess.decide" from github/spec-kit-copilot, covering when to run it, how to ask — always use the askuser tool, after the answers and what to ask about at the decide stage.
speckit.assess.define
Command "speckit.assess.define" from github/spec-kit-copilot, covering when to run it, how to ask — always use the askuser tool, after the answers and what to ask about at the define stage.