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/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-templateWrote 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/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/opsx-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/opsx-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/opsx-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template/opsx-verify.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 | $0.00008 | $0.03798 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.01519 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00760 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00380 |
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 12d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to OPSX: Verify — 120 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 213 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).
Store selection: If the user names a store (a store is a standalone OpenSpec repo registered on this machine) or the work lives in one, run openspec store list --json to discover registered store ids, then pass --store <id> on the commands that read or write specs and changes (new change, status, instructions, list, show, validate, archive, doctor, context, schemas, view). Once selected, treat --store <id> as sticky for the rest of the workflow. Every unscoped example of those commands below is shorthand: before running it, append the flag. For example, run openspec status --change "<name>" --json --store "<id>", not the unscoped form shown below. Other commands do not take the flag. Hints printed by commands already carry the flag; keep it on follow-ups. Without a store, commands act on the nearest local openspec/ root.
Project check: These steps expect a project that already uses OpenSpec. Before the first step that writes anything (new change, archive, sync specs, or authoring an artifact file), confirm the project has a root: run openspec list --json (with --store <id> when a store is selected, since the store is then the root) and read root. A root object means the project is set up. "root": null means it is not - there is no openspec/ directory here, and a write such as openspec new change would create one as a side effect. The command also exits non-zero, which is that answer rather than a broken CLI, so read the JSON instead of retrying or working around it.
One "root": null is not about setup: when a status error message starts with Declared in or Invalid store declaration in and names this project's openspec/config.yaml (or config.yml), the project does use OpenSpec through a store it declares, which this machine cannot resolve (the store is not registered, or the store: line is malformed). Do not treat it as uninitialized and skip the branches below: stop before writing and show the user that error's message and fix.
Otherwise, with no root, what happens next depends on how this workflow was reached:
- Auto-selected: you chose this workflow yourself, without the user naming OpenSpec, naming this skill, or running its slash command. Stop using OpenSpec and answer the request normally, as you would with no OpenSpec installed. Do not ask them to set anything up and do not mention OpenSpec setup.
- Explicit OpenSpec request: the user named OpenSpec, named this skill, or ran its slash command. Stop before writing and ask how to proceed: set this project up (
openspec init), target a store they already have (--store <id>), or continue without OpenSpec for this request. Wait for their answer.
In both branches, never create the root as a side effect: do not run openspec init until the user asks for it, do not hand-create openspec/ files, and do not let a command create it.
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.
Provided arguments: $ARGUMENTS
Steps
-
Select the change
If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
- Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
- Auto-select if only one active change exists
- If ambiguous, run
openspec list --jsonto get available changes and ask the user to select one
When prompting, show all active changes returned by the list, including changes with
status: "no-tasks". Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".Always announce: "Using change: " and how to override (e.g.,
/opsx-verify <other>). -
Check status to understand the schema
openspec status --change "<name>" --jsonParse the JSON to understand:
schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")planningHome,changeRoot,artifactPaths, andactionContext: path and scope context- Which artifacts exist for this change
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +51 lines 11906b881d94
- 1mo ago First seen · 162 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A a033a0b9bf15
opsx-verify is a command published in the GitHub repository intent-driven-dev/intent-driven-template (169 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 3,798 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 120 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
self-review
Verify what you delivered since the last self-review with real runs, and review its structure.
branch-review
Review a branch before merge.
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.
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
root-cause
Use when any test fails, bug appears, or behaviour surprises you, before proposing a fix - find the cause and prove it, by reading real evidence, tracing bad values back to their origin, comparing against a working case, and testing one hypothesis at a time.
fix-comments
Address PR review comments by implementing requested changes automatically.