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/re-cinq/wave/speckit.checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/re-cinq/waveWhat 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 | $0.00013 | $0.03732 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.01866 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00746 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00373 |
Grade A, and why
speckit.checklist 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to checklist — 107 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 — 295 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Checklist Purpose: "Unit Tests for English"
CRITICAL CONCEPT: Checklists are UNIT TESTS FOR REQUIREMENTS WRITING - they validate the quality, clarity, and completeness of requirements in a given domain.
NOT for verification/testing:
- ❌ NOT "Verify the button clicks correctly"
- ❌ NOT "Test error handling works"
- ❌ NOT "Confirm the API returns 200"
- ❌ NOT checking if code/implementation matches the spec
FOR requirements quality validation:
- ✅ "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined for all card types?" (completeness)
- ✅ "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" (clarity)
- ✅ "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" (consistency)
- ✅ "Are accessibility requirements defined for keyboard navigation?" (coverage)
- ✅ "Does the spec define what happens when logo image fails to load?" (edge cases)
Metaphor: If your spec is code written in English, the checklist is its unit test suite. You're testing whether the requirements are well-written, complete, unambiguous, and ready for implementation - NOT whether the implementation works.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Execution Steps
-
Setup: Run
.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --jsonfrom repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list.- All file paths must be absolute.
- For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
-
Clarify intent (dynamic): Derive up to THREE initial contextual clarifying questions (no pre-baked catalog). They MUST:
- Be generated from the user's phrasing + extracted signals from spec/plan/tasks
- Only ask about information that materially changes checklist content
- Be skipped individually if already unambiguous in
$ARGUMENTS - Prefer precision over breadth
Generation algorithm:
- Extract signals: feature domain keywords (e.g., auth, latency, UX, API), risk indicators ("critical", "must", "compliance"), stakeholder hints ("QA", "review", "security team"), and explicit deliverables ("a11y", "rollback", "contracts").
- Cluster signals into candidate focus areas (max 4) ranked by relevance.
- Identify probable audience & timing (author, reviewer, QA, release) if not explicit.
- Detect missing dimensions: scope breadth, depth/rigor, risk emphasis, exclusion boundaries, measurable acceptance criteria.
- Formulate questions chosen from these archetypes:
- Scope refinement (e.g., "Should this include integration touchpoints with X and Y or stay limited to local module correctness?")
- Risk prioritization (e.g., "Which of these potential risk areas should receive mandatory gating checks?")
- Depth calibration (e.g., "Is this a lightweight pre-commit sanity list or a formal release gate?")
- Audience framing (e.g., "Will this be used by the author only or peers during PR review?")
- Boundary exclusion (e.g., "Should we explicitly exclude performance tuning items this round?")
- Scenario class gap (e.g., "No recovery flows detected—are rollback / partial failure paths in scope?")
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 First seen · 295 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 81a80bd8d91b
speckit.checklist is a command published in the GitHub repository re-cinq/wave (20 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 3,732 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to checklist, differing in 107 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
project
Generate project documentation (product.md, structure.md, tech.md, codemaps/).
toh-help
Display all Toh Framework commands and quick usage guide.
update-workflow
Regenerate an existing custom workflow's shortcut command wiring from the current swarm template.
fix-issue
!gh issue view $ARGUMENTS 2>/dev/null || echo "Could not fetch issue $ARGUMENTS".
session-log
Create or append a session log entry.
legal-5step
Execute the BetterCallClaude 5-step Swiss legal framework: intake → research → strategy → adversarial → draft. A complete end-to-end pipeline for any Swiss legal matter, from document analysis through final legal output.