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/ronronner02/codepilot-agentWrote 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/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-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/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-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 | $0.00008 | $0.28021 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.11208 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.05604 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.02802 |
Grade A, and why
spec-code-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 1mo 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 — 1,037 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Command support root: .claude/spec-first/workflows/spec-code-review. Treat it as the loaded skill directory whenever this inlined workflow refers to SKILL_DIR or the directory containing SKILL.md.
Code Review
Reviews code changes against intent, tests, standards, and risk lenses. When reviewer dispatch is explicitly authorized and callable, it uses selected personas and merges structured findings; otherwise it performs an honest inline report-only review with degraded coverage.
Workflow Contract Summary
- 输入： 当前分支、显式 base、远端 branch/PR，及可选 plan/task-pack 上下文。
- 输出： 默认 report-only 的结构化 findings、actionable queue、coverage、验证限制与 run artifact；
mode:agent返回 JSON。 - 硬出口： scope/base 不可解析、task context 漂移或越界、错误 checkout、必需独立覆盖不可用时不得给出完整 merge-ready 声明。
- 权威： source/diff/test/log 提供事实，reviewers 判断语义；review、local mutation、commit 与 landing 是四个独立授权面。
- 消费者： 人工 reviewer、
spec-work、caller-owned shipping/LFG 流程与后续 residual gate。
When to Use
- Before creating a PR
- After completing a task during iterative implementation
- When feedback is needed on any code changes
- Can be invoked standalone
- Can run inside larger workflows; use
mode:agentwhen the caller needs JSON instead of markdown tables
Scenario Capability
Follows docs/contracts/workflows/scenario-capability-matrix.md.
Overrides: high-risk
foreign-residual-workspace->blocked-action-required: stop before reviewer dispatch that depends on suspect local artifacts, checkout mutation, root-cause-like review claims, or PR-ready verdicts until the named cleanup/init action runs or the user explicitly accepts degraded evidence.- optional external-tool evidence unavailable ->
fallback-only: use bounded direct source, diff, test, log, and user-provided evidence; disclose missing reviewer/tool coverage and do not claim unconfirmed impact or full review coverage. non-git-build-workspacecoverage gaps ->partial: review only the selected repo/inspected build surfaces and directly inspect uncovered modules before claiming they are unaffected.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 1,037 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A c45576f0ef34
spec-code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository ronronner02/codepilot-agent (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 28,021 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
develop
Implement skill development issues with TDD-governed workflow.
release-flow
Portable gated release flow — deterministic gate + vendor-agnostic independent reviewer, runnable from any harness.
help
Quick reference for all Attune commands.
next
Run python scripts/operatorhelper.py next-prompt --runner claude --phase auto from this lab's root directory, read the prompt it prints, and then execute that prompt's instructions.
handoff-session
Snapshot the current session into a paste-ready handoff prompt (auto-copied to clipboard) for a fresh session.
design-review
Compare design (Figma URL or mockup image) against implementation to detect UI mismatches (colors, layout, typography).