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/rhuss/cc-spexWrote 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/rhuss/cc-spex/speckit.spex-collab.revise)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rhuss/cc-spex/speckit.spex-collab.revise"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rhuss/cc-spex/speckit.spex-collab.revise/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/rhuss/cc-spex/speckit.spex-collab.revise"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rhuss/cc-spex/speckit.spex-collab.revise.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 | $0.00023 | $0.02424 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.01212 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00485 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00242 |
Grade A, and why
speckit.spex-collab.revise scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 322 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Revise Spec from PR Feedback
Handles the spec revision loop: read PR review comments, update spec, cascade to plan and tasks, document the revision in REVIEWERS.md, and push back to the PR.
Ship Pipeline Guard
If .specify/.spex-state exists with mode: "ship", return immediately. Spec revision is an interactive collab workflow.
Resolve Context
PREREQ=$(.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only 2>/dev/null)
FEATURE_DIR=$(echo "$PREREQ" | jq -r '.FEATURE_DIR')
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
Verify required artifacts exist:
[ -f "${FEATURE_DIR}/spec.md" ] || { echo "ERROR: No spec.md found in ${FEATURE_DIR}"; exit 1; }
Gather Feedback
Determine the review feedback to address. Two input modes:
Mode 1: PR number provided (--pr <number>)
Fetch unresolved review comments from the PR:
PR_NUM="<number>"
gh pr view "$PR_NUM" --json reviews,comments --jq '.reviews[].body, .comments[].body' 2>/dev/null
gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/${PR_NUM}/comments" --jq '.[] | select(.position != null) | "\(.path):\(.position) - \(.body)"' 2>/dev/null
Present a summary of the feedback to the user:
## PR #<number> Review Feedback
Found N review comments:
1. @reviewer: "The hard removal of stdout seems risky..."
2. @reviewer: "Should subagent merging be in scope?"
...
Which comments should we address in this revision?
{harness:interactive-choice} (multi-select, header: "Feedback"): "Which review comments should this revision address?"
Options: one per comment (label: truncated comment, description: full text)
Mode 2: User describes changes (arguments or conversation)
If no --pr flag, the user's arguments or conversation describe what to change. Use that directly as the revision input.
Plan the Revision
Before making changes, summarize what will change. Read the current spec.md and identify which sections are affected by the feedback.
Present a revision plan:
## Revision Plan
Based on the feedback, these changes are needed:
**Spec changes**:
- Section "Requirements": add deprecation warning for stdout access
- Section "Out of Scope": move subagent merging to in-scope
**Expected cascade**:
- plan.md: will need regeneration (new requirements affect implementation approach)
- tasks.md: will need regeneration (task count may change)
- REVIEWERS.md: Key Decisions and Scope Boundaries sections affected
Proceed with revision?
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 322 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A f5aeff93a5e7
speckit.spex-collab.revise is a command published in the GitHub repository rhuss/cc-spex (117 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,424 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
gh-triage
GitHub OSS maintainer lifecycle triage, review, and approval management.
sync-pr-dashboard
Sync the NI&D GitHub Project board — populate PR authors, sync reviewers to assignees, add shared repo PRs, classify areas.
rfc
RFC process for cross-team decisions. Create, track, and close RFCs. Accepted RFCs auto-create ADRs.
discover
Run a full product discovery cycle — from outcome definition through opportunity mapping, prioritisation, and experiment design. Use when the team isn't sure what to build next, or before writing a PRD for a complex feature space.
migrate
Migrate existing PROJECT.md to the latest greatcto schema — appends missing fields without touching existing values.
exception
Signed gate-exception registry — replace ad-hoc --admin / --no-verify bypasses with an auditable, signed, expiring record (who · why · gate · scope · expiry). Create / list / check exceptions.