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/Mozurok/fhorja.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/mozurok/fhorja.dev/design-spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mozurok/fhorja.dev/design-spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mozurok/fhorja.dev/design-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/mozurok/fhorja.dev/design-spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mozurok/fhorja.dev/design-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 | $0.00089 | $0.03371 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.01348 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00674 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00337 |
Grade A, and why
design-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 20d 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
86% identical to component-spec — 73 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
design-spec-review
Act as a design system QA engineer verifying implementation fidelity against a documented spec.
Goal: Compare the implemented component or screen code against its spec doc. Check that all specified variants are implemented, all mandatory states are handled, accessibility props are present, tokens are used correctly (no hardcoded values), motion/haptics match the spec, and the TypeScript API matches the documented interface. Produce a findings list with P0/P1/P2 severity.
Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output):
- Read these sections in
WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.mdfirst:## LLM execution contract## Editor mode policy(mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded inwos/editor-mode-mappings.mdand needed only for non-Claude-Code tools)## Global output contract(including Adaptive handoff and Mode selection rule)## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails
- Bootstrap tiers: the light-weight commands (
branch-commit,what-next,where-we-at,slice-closure,compact-task-memory) plus the high-frequencyimplement-approved-sliceandsync-task-state(v3 wave1 item D) read the four sections above with two subsections of## Cross-cutting workflow guardrailsskipped:### External web access (centralized)and### Sequencing heuristics (by phase). Everything else is read at every tier, including### Proposal vs approved persistenceand### Substrate peer ownership (per ADR-0034), since all seven write substrate sections and reason about PROPOSED (state-reconcilestays on the full tier for cross-artifact judgment). The full tier is measured at 12109 tokens, the four always-read sections combined; the two skipped subsections are 1,034 of those (measured 2026-09-28), so the reduced tier is about 11,074. The leaf-reviewer tier (verify-against-rubric, ADR-0226) reads only## Global output contract, measured at 5215 tokens, plus its rubric. - Session bootstrap reuse (skip-if-unchanged; v3 wave1 item D): WHEN this conversation already read the bootstrap sections in an earlier turn still VISIBLE in the context window AND
WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.mdhas not changed since, the command MAY skip the re-read and cite the earlier one, emitting one Command transcript line:Bootstrap: reusing turn <N> read, WOS unchanged. Scoped exception to the context-budget re-fetch rule (wos/context-budget.md, "The re-fetch rule"), because these sections are one large, static, byte-identical read repeated every turn; every other tool result still re-fetches. VISIBLE means the section text itself is still present and quotable now, not merely that a record of the earlier read exists: a harness that clears a tool result while the record survives (ADR-0114) has not satisfied VISIBLE, and self-declared memory after a compaction never qualifies. A stateless-per-turn harness is excluded. The transcript line is mandatory; a silent skip is invalid output. - Resolving the spec and
wos/<topic>.md: canonical repository FIRST. Otherwise use active-adapter docs:~/.claude/workflow-docs(CLAUDE_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR),~/.cursor/workflow-docs(WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR; project.cursor/workflow-docson project installs),~/.codex/workflow-docs(CODEX_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR), or<kimi-home>/workflow-docs(KIMI_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR). Nonempty overrides win. Kimi home:KIMI_CODE_HOME, else existing~/.kimi-code, else existing~/.kimi, default~/.kimi-code. Use one root for both paths; try other adapters if absent or unknown. Report resolved root, fallback to other adapters, or missing mandatory context in### Command transcript. Installed snapshots refresh and prune retired topics only on sync. - Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set.
- Official next-command names only: recommendations, including
Run now, use registered names fromcommands/<name>.mdorcommands/<name>/SKILL.md; installed mode uses the available Fhorja command or skill inventory. No invented aliases.Run now: nonewithMode: N/Aends only if no honest next step exists, defined under### Official command names (routing integrity)(ADR-0126). Required inputs: - component or screen name
- path to the spec doc (
docs/research/components/<tier>/<name>.mdordocs/app/screens/<persona>/<nn>-<slug>.md) - path to the implementation code
- project workspace path
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.
- 20d ago Changed · -41 tokens per session 1d852a07f68c
- 23d ago Changed · -1 lines 525d64724c40
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines 65cc6c409920
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines eeaf89e5c805
- 1mo ago First seen · 113 lines · 130 tokens per session scan A ba82205d9990
design-spec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Mozurok/fhorja.dev (10 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 3,371 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to component-spec, differing in 73 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
validate-impl
Validate implementation against requirements, design, and tasks.
skill-creator
Create or update an OpenCode skill using the bundled skill-creator workflow.
code-review
Run parallel specialized review agents and produce aggregated quality report.
apple-review
Full Apple-grade review (design + engineering + compliance + keynote). Review only, no fixes. Runs the apple-review skill.
handle-pr-comments
Fetch all PR comments, classify by severity, and present for user approval before acting.
self-review
Review only changed files in this branch Your primary goal is to provide valuable, trustworthy feedback while avoiding false positives and low-impact commentary.