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/qinye6/pi-ccgWrote 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/qinye6/pi-ccg/spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/qinye6/pi-ccg/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/qinye6/pi-ccg/spec-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00016 | $0.01890 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00945 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00378 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00189 |
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 8d 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
100% identical to spec-review — 4 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Core Philosophy
- Dual-model cross-validation catches blind spots single-model review would miss.
- Critical findings SHOULD be addressed before proceeding.
- Review validates implementation against spec constraints and code quality.
- This is an independent review tool—can be used anytime, not tied to archive workflow.
Guardrails
- MANDATORY: Both {{BACKEND_PRIMARY}} AND {{FRONTEND_PRIMARY}} must complete review before synthesis.
- Review scope is strictly limited to the proposal's changes—no scope creep.
- Refer to
openspec/config.yamlfor project conventions when reviewing OpenSpec proposals.
Steps
-
Select Proposal
- Run
openspec list --jsonto display Active Changes. - Confirm with user which proposal ID to review.
- Run
openspec status --change "<proposal_id>" --jsonto load spec and tasks.
- Run
-
Collect Implementation Artifacts
- Identify all files modified by this proposal.
- Use
git diffto get change summary. - Load relevant spec constraints and PBT properties from
openspec/changes/<id>/specs/.
-
Multi-Model Review (PARALLEL)
- CRITICAL: You MUST launch BOTH {{BACKEND_PRIMARY}} AND {{FRONTEND_PRIMARY}} in a SINGLE message with TWO Bash tool calls.
- DO NOT call one model first and wait. Launch BOTH simultaneously with
run_in_background: true. - 工作目录:
{{WORKDIR}}必须通过 Bash 执行pwd(Unix)或cd(Windows CMD)获取当前工作目录的绝对路径,禁止从$HOME或环境变量推断。如果用户通过/add-dir添加了多个工作区,先确定任务相关的工作区。
Step 3.1: In ONE message, make TWO parallel Bash calls:
FIRST Bash call ({{BACKEND_PRIMARY}}):
Bash({ command: "~/.claude/bin/codeagent-wrapper --progress --backend {{BACKEND_PRIMARY}} {{GEMINI_MODEL_FLAG}}{{GROK_MODEL_FLAG}}- \"{{WORKDIR}}\" <<'EOF'\nReview proposal <proposal_id> implementation:\n\n## {{BACKEND_PRIMARY}} Review Dimensions\n1. **Spec Compliance**: Verify ALL constraints from spec are satisfied\n2. **PBT Properties**: Check invariants, idempotency, bounds are correctly implemented\n3. **Logic Correctness**: Edge cases, error handling, algorithm correctness\n4. **Backend Security**: Injection vulnerabilities, auth checks, input validation\n5. **Regression Risk**: Interface compatibility, type safety, breaking changes\n\n## Output Format (JSON)\n{\n \"findings\": [\n {\n \"severity\": \"Critical|Warning|Info\",\n \"dimension\": \"spec_compliance|pbt|logic|security|regression\",\n \"file\": \"path/to/file.ts\",\n \"line\": 42,\n \"description\": \"What is wrong\",\n \"constraint_violated\": \"Constraint ID from spec (if applicable)\",\n \"fix_suggestion\": \"How to fix\"\n }\n ],\n \"passed_checks\": [\"List of verified constraints/properties\"],\n \"summary\": \"Overall assessment\"\n}\nEOF", run_in_background: true, timeout: 300000, description: "{{BACKEND_PRIMARY}}: backend/logic review" })SECOND Bash call ({{FRONTEND_PRIMARY}}) - IN THE SAME MESSAGE:
Bash({ command: "~/.claude/bin/codeagent-wrapper --progress --backend {{FRONTEND_PRIMARY}} {{GEMINI_MODEL_FLAG}}{{GROK_MODEL_FLAG}}- \"{{WORKDIR}}\" <<'EOF'\nReview proposal <proposal_id> implementation:\n\n## {{FRONTEND_PRIMARY}} Review Dimensions\n1. **Pattern Consistency**: Naming conventions, code style, project patterns\n2. **Maintainability**: Readability, complexity, documentation adequacy\n3. **Integration Risk**: Dependency changes, cross-module impacts\n4. **Frontend Security**: XSS, CSRF, sensitive data exposure\n5. **Spec Alignment**: Implementation matches spec intent (not just letter)\n\n## Output Format (JSON)\n{\n \"findings\": [\n {\n \"severity\": \"Critical|Warning|Info\",\n \"dimension\": \"patterns|maintainability|integration|security|alignment\",\n \"file\": \"path/to/file.ts\",\n \"line\": 42,\n \"description\": \"What is wrong\",\n \"spec_reference\": \"Spec section (if applicable)\",\n \"fix_suggestion\": \"How to fix\"\n }\n ],\n \"passed_checks\": [\"List of verified aspects\"],\n \"summary\": \"Overall assessment\"\n}\nEOF", run_in_background: true, timeout: 300000, description: "{{FRONTEND_PRIMARY}}: patterns/integration review" })
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 125 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 39547c8fd78e
spec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository qinye6/pi-ccg (10 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,890 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to spec-review, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.
security-review
AI-powered security review of the current git diff (or specified paths). Dispatches the security-reviewer agent and prints findings grouped by severity.