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/rshade/finfocus/speckit.clarifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rshade/finfocusWrote 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/rshade/finfocus/speckit.clarify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/rshade/finfocus/speckit.clarify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/rshade/finfocus/speckit.clarify.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 | $0.00027 | $0.02315 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01157 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00463 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
speckit.clarify 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 3d 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 speckit.clarify — 0 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 — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Outline
Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.
Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking /speckit.plan. If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases.
Execution steps:
-
Run
.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-onlyfrom repo root once (combined--json --paths-onlymode /-Json -PathsOnly). Parse minimal JSON payload fields:FEATURE_DIRFEATURE_SPEC- (Optionally capture
IMPL_PLAN,TASKSfor future chained flows.) - If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run
/speckit.specifyor verify feature branch environment. - 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").
-
Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).
Functional Scope & Behavior:
- Core user goals & success criteria
- Explicit out-of-scope declarations
- User roles / personas differentiation
Domain & Data Model:
- Entities, attributes, relationships
- Identity & uniqueness rules
- Lifecycle/state transitions
- Data volume / scale assumptions
Interaction & UX Flow:
- Critical user journeys / sequences
- Error/empty/loading states
- Accessibility or localization notes
Non-Functional Quality Attributes:
- Performance (latency, throughput targets)
- Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits)
- Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)
- Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)
- Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions)
- Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any)
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 182 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 61c0ad7aa1ae
speckit.clarify is a command published in the GitHub repository rshade/finfocus (5 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 2,315 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 speckit.clarify, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
create-issue
Create a GitHub issue from the repo's templates, with the right type and labels.
review-code
Review a GitHub pull request for the OpenOps codebase. Checks out the PR, analyzes changes through OpenOps-specific lenses, validates findings with confidence scoring, previews before posting, and supports inline comments.
scan
Scan AWS account for cost optimization.
costguard-audit
Audit registered workspaces for CI-minute and cron waste, plus read-only cloud provider billing checks. Quantifies estimated monthly waste and prints a Markdown (or JSON) report.
costguard-fix
Auto-fix CI workflow waste (add timeouts, concurrency, paths-ignore) for registered workspaces. Dry-run preview by default; --apply writes the surgical edits to disk.
langgraph-human-in-loop
LangGraph human-in-the-loop patterns. Use when implementing approval workflows, manual review gates, user feedback integration, or interactive agent steps. Triggers on human-in-loop, approval workflow, review gate, interrupt, user feedback, manual approval, interactive agent.