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/juanklagos/spec-driven-development-template/gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juanklagos/spec-driven-development-templateWhat 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 | $0.00032 | $0.00719 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
gate 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 yesterday.
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.
What it actually says
Run the gate and, only if it opens, prepare implementation. Respond in the user's language (EN/ES).
- Run (root layout; in sidecar projects use
./spec/scripts/...):./scripts/check-sdd-policy.sh ../scripts/check-sdd-gate.sh .
- Report the result honestly, including full error/warning lines, the verdict line and the posture line.
The gate answers one of three states, and they mean different things:
open/ABIERTA— a spec is approved and consented to. Implementation may start.closed/CERRADA— nothing is approved yet. Not a failure: it is where every project starts. Exit code is still 0 unless--require-openwas passed, in which case it is 2.blocked/BLOQUEADA— there are errors. Exit code 1. The posture line states what the gate did and did NOT check. Repeat it to the user rather than paraphrasing: it is the only thing standing between a green result and a false sense of coverage. In particular the gate does not read project code, so it cannot tell you whether what was written matches the spec.
- If the gate FAILS, branch on which error it printed. Do not implement either way.
- Only missing consent (
Missing or empty user consent logand/orNNN-slug approved but no user consent recorded for it) — the spec itself is fine, it just has no recorded consent yet./sdd:speccannot fix this; consent is the remedy. So:- Ask the user explicitly: "Do you approve starting implementation of spec NNN with this scope?"
- Only after a clear yes in the chat, record it:
./scripts/confirm-user-consent.sh --spec NNN-slug "User approved implementation for spec NNN-slug". - Re-run
./scripts/check-sdd-gate.sh .and continue from step 2 with the new result.
- Any other error (spec not approved, placeholder approval date/approver, empty approval evidence,
plan.mdincomplete,tasks.mdwith no checklist, a missing agent rule file) — name the exact gap and the file/section to fix, and suggest/sdd:specto refine. Never record consent to make one of these go away.
- Only missing consent (
- If the gate PASSES:
- If consent for the active spec is already recorded, implementation may start, limited to the tasks in
tasks.mdof that spec. - If the gate only passed because a legacy workspace-wide consent log covers the spec (the
Legacy consent log covers these approved specswarning), ask for approval as in step 3 and record a per-spec entry before implementing.
- If consent for the active spec is already recorded, implementation may start, limited to the tasks in
Notes:
- Consent is per spec. One recorded consent opens the gate for that spec id only.
- A consent entry without
--specis a legacy, workspace-wide record: the gate accepts it with a warning, but prefer the explicit form.
Hard stop: no code before approved spec.md, consistent plan.md, and recorded consent for that spec. Never fabricate or assume consent.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 31 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 03c11aea97cc
gate is a command published in the GitHub repository juanklagos/spec-driven-development-template (14 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 719 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
paul:help
Show available PAUL commands and usage guide.
safe-refactor
Safe refactoring with automated review, testing, and rollback capabilities.
test
Smart test runner with filtering, coverage, and health monitoring.
paul:verify
Guide manual user acceptance testing of recently built features.
drift
Post-implementation spec drift check — verify the implementation matches existing OpenSpec specifications.
expect
Diff-aware AI browser testing — reads the git diff, maps changes to affected pages via the route map, generates a targeted test plan, and executes it via agent-browser (Rust daemon + CDP, ARIA-tree-first) with pass/fail reporting. Use when testing UI changes, verifying PRs before merge, or running regression checks on…