Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/plugin install feature-devWrote 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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/spec-review/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/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/spec-review.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 | $0.00039 | $0.02457 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00983 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00491 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00246 |
Grade A, and why
spec-review 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 2d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
- Repository: !
git remote get-url origin - Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Spec argument: $ARGUMENTS
- Feature store: each feature lives in
.feature-dev/features/<slug>/, managed by${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/features.py(pass--root <repo root>). Layout: artifact-locations.md.
Phase 0: Resolve the Spec File
--pane / --no-pane are flags: drop them before reading $ARGUMENTS below.
- If
$ARGUMENTSis#N,owner/repo#N, or an issue URL → resolve it per issue-store.md's Argument parsing, then run issue-store.md's Import algorithm against it, start to finish. Do not restate Import's steps here — follow the reference. A failedghpreflight, or a failedgh issue viewcall, stops here and names the issue that could not be read. On success, continue as if$ARGUMENTShad been the resultingSPEC-<slug>.mdpath (the reference's own step 6). - If
$ARGUMENTSis provided and is not an issue reference → use it as the path to the spec file. If the file does not exist, STOP and report. Refuse any path outside.feature-dev/features/(a rootSPEC-*.md, or the layout older than 2.0.0) in one line, naming.feature-dev/features/<slug>/as the only place specs live. - If
$ARGUMENTSis empty → auto-discover spec files. Run${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/features.py list --json --root <repo root>and take theartifactsentries withkind: "spec"(each has apath), then read each file's frontmatter. Do not filter bystatus:— a spec withstatus: implementedis still legitimate to re-review (e.g., for retro learning). From the candidates:- 0 specs → STOP and ask the user to provide a path or run
/feature-dev:specfirst. - 1 spec → use it. Inform the user: "Auto-selected spec:
<spec path>(feature: , status: )". - 2+ specs → use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick (label =
feature:value, description =<filename> — status: <status>).
- 0 specs → STOP and ask the user to provide a path or run
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.
- 2d ago Changed · +1 lines 80de9f923237
- 10d ago Changed · +16 lines 9f16b2799151
- 14d ago Changed · +2 lines 35565d96af04
- 18d ago Changed · +8 lines a04c8dc538f7
- 19d ago Changed · +25 lines a8ce4175c074
- 1mo ago First seen · 73 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A f184d1a9b41b
spec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,457 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.bug.fix
Apply the remediation from a bug assessment and record what was changed.