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/thibautbaissac/rails_ai_agents/specifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agentsWrote 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/thibautbaissac/rails_ai_agents/specify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/thibautbaissac/rails_ai_agents/specify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/thibautbaissac/rails_ai_agents/specify.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00859 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00430 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00172 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
specify 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 6d 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Outline
The text the user typed after /sdd-change:specify in the triggering message is the change description. Do not ask the user to repeat it unless they provided an empty command.
Given that change description, do this:
-
Generate a concise short name (2-4 words) for the branch:
- Analyze the description and extract the most meaningful keywords
- Use action-noun format (e.g., "fix-login-timeout", "add-csv-export", "update-email-template")
- Preserve technical terms and acronyms
-
Create the feature branch by running the script:
Branch numbering mode: Check if
.specify/init-options.jsonexists and read thebranch_numberingvalue.- If
"timestamp", add--timestampto the script invocation - If
"sequential"or absent, do not add any extra flag
Run:
.specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh "$ARGUMENTS" --json --short-name "<name>" "<description>"IMPORTANT:
- Do NOT pass
--number— the script determines the next number automatically - Always include
--jsonso the output can be parsed reliably - You must only ever run this script once per change
- Parse the JSON output for BRANCH_NAME and SPEC_FILE paths
- For single quotes in args, use escape syntax: e.g 'I'''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible)
- If
-
Load the change-spec template: Read
.specify/templates/change-spec-template.mdfor the required structure. -
Load constitution (if exists): Read
.specify/memory/constitution.mdto respect project principles when filling the spec. -
Fill the change spec and overwrite SPEC_FILE with content based on the change-spec-template structure:
- Problem: 2-3 sentences describing current vs expected behavior. Be specific.
- Proposed Change: What the fix/change looks like from the user's perspective. No implementation details.
- Acceptance Criteria: 1-3 Given/When/Then scenarios. Keep it focused and testable.
- Files Likely Affected: Analyze the codebase to identify specific file paths. Use Glob/Grep if needed.
- Assumptions: Document any best-guess decisions. NO
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]markers — make reasonable assumptions and document them here. - Type: Classify as Bug Fix, Small Feature, or Refactor.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 76 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 3f4b8a5b47a2
specify is a command published in the GitHub repository ThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agents (659 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 859 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
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.