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/kbwo/ccmanager/spec-tasksgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kbwo/ccmanagerWhat 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 | $0.00006 | $0.01747 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00873 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00349 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
spec-tasks 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implementation Tasks
Generate detailed implementation tasks for feature: $1
Task: Generate Implementation Tasks
Prerequisites & Context Loading
- If invoked with
-yflag ($2 == "-y"): Auto-approve requirements and design inspec.json - Otherwise: Stop if requirements/design missing or unapproved with message:
"Run
/kiro:spec-requirementsand/kiro:spec-designfirst, or use-yflag to auto-approve" - If tasks.md exists: Prompt [o]verwrite/[m]erge/[c]ancel
Context Loading (Full Paths):
.kiro/specs/$1/requirements.md- Feature requirements (EARS format).kiro/specs/$1/design.md- Technical design document.kiro/steering/- Project-wide guidelines and constraints:- Core files (always load):
- @.kiro/steering/product.md - Business context, product vision, user needs
- @.kiro/steering/tech.md - Technology stack, frameworks, libraries
- @.kiro/steering/structure.md - File organization, naming conventions, code patterns
- Custom steering files (load all EXCEPT "Manual" mode in
AGENTS.md):- Any additional
*.mdfiles in.kiro/steering/directory - Examples:
api.md,testing.md,security.md, etc.
- Any additional
- (Task planning benefits from comprehensive context)
- Core files (always load):
.kiro/specs/$1/tasks.md- Existing tasks (only if merge mode)
CRITICAL Task Numbering Rules (MUST FOLLOW)
⚠️ MANDATORY: Sequential major task numbering & hierarchy limits
- Major tasks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... (MUST increment sequentially)
- Sub-tasks: 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2... (reset per major task)
- Maximum 2 levels of hierarchy (no 1.1.1 or deeper)
- Format exactly as:
- [ ] 1. Major task description
- [ ] 1.1 Sub-task description
- Detail item 1
- Detail item 2
- _Requirements: X.X, Y.Y_
- [ ] 1.2 Sub-task description
- Detail items...
- _Requirements: X.X_
- [ ] 2. Next major task (NOT 1 again!)
- [ ] 2.1 Sub-task...
Task Generation Rules
- Natural language descriptions: Focus on capabilities and outcomes, not code structure
- Describe what functionality to achieve, not file locations or code organization
- Specify business logic and behavior, not method signatures or type definitions
- Reference features and capabilities, not class names or API contracts
- Use domain language, not programming constructs
- Avoid: File paths, function/method names, type signatures, class/interface names, specific data structures
- Include: User-facing functionality, business rules, system behaviors, data relationships
- Implementation details (files, methods, types) come from design.md
- Task integration & progression:
- Each task must build on previous outputs (no orphaned code)
- End with integration tasks to wire everything together
- No hanging features - every component must connect to the system
- Incremental complexity - no big jumps between tasks
- Validate core functionality early in the sequence
- Flexible task sizing:
- Major tasks: As many sub-tasks as logically needed
- Sub-tasks: 1-3 hours each, 3-10 details per sub
- Group by cohesion, not arbitrary numbers
- Balance between too granular and too broad
- Requirements mapping: End details with
_Requirements: X.X, Y.Y_or_Requirements: [description]_ - Code-only focus: Include ONLY coding/testing tasks, exclude deployment/docs/user testing
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 · 177 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 59215aa9b6d7
spec-tasks is a command published in the GitHub repository kbwo/ccmanager (1,229 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 1,747 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
package-assistant
Convert an OfficeCLI skill into a fully wired AionUi assistant preset, or update an existing one.
implement
Have Gemini (via agy) implement a task by editing files directly.
adversarial-review
Get a devil's advocate review that challenges your design decisions.
ask
Ask Gemini (via agy) a question, optionally with file context.
rescue
Delegate investigation, an explicit fix request, or follow-up rescue work to the Gemini rescue subagent.
review
Run a Gemini code review against local git state.