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 skills/acendas/shipyard/dispatching-spec-reviewnpx skills add Acendas/shipyard --skill dispatching-spec-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Acendas/shipyardWrote 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/skills/acendas/shipyard/dispatching-spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/acendas/shipyard/dispatching-spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/acendas/shipyard/dispatching-spec-review.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 | $0.00014 | $0.01738 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00869 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00348 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00174 |
Grade A, and why
dispatching-spec-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 5d 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Dispatching a Spec Review
Render before asking. Before any AskUserQuestion, render the decision context as assistant chat text. Content that exists only in a Read result, a subagent/Agent return, or the question/option strings does not count as rendered (the UI shows a compact card) — restate it in chat first.
Sends a fresh-context subagent to compare what the spec requires against what the diff delivers. The subagent reads, reasons, and reports — it does not edit code or commit. The orchestrator uses the structured findings to decide whether to mark a task done, request fixes, or block approval.
When to Invoke
| Caller | Scope | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
/ship-execute post-task gate |
One task | After dispatching-task-loop returns STATUS: COMPLETE and anti-stub-scan is clean — final compliance check before marking task done |
/ship-execute wave VERIFY |
All tasks in a wave | After wave-boundary REFACTOR — confirms wave-level acceptance scenarios all hold |
/ship-review |
Sprint or feature | Full audit before user approval |
| Manual / ad-hoc | Single feature | When the user asks "did we actually deliver F-007?" |
Skip this skill for tasks marked effort: S (trivial) — overhead exceeds value. The post-task gate explicitly bypasses for S tasks per /ship-execute's spec-check rule.
Inputs
scope—"task" | "wave" | "feature" | "sprint". Determines which spec files and which diff range.target_ids— list of task IDs (scope=task), feature IDs (scope=feature), or null for wave/sprint (those are inferred from sprint state).base_ref— git ref the diff started from. For wave: the working branch HEAD before wave kickoff. For sprint: the sprint's base ref.head_ref— current HEAD (or the sprint's working branch HEAD).data_dir— literal<SHIPYARD_DATA>path.
Dispatching the Reviewer
The reviewer methodology (AC classification, the Iron Law, the read-only contract, the Required Return Shape) lives in the registered agent agents/shipyard-spec-reviewer.md — read it once if you need to know exactly what it does; do not re-inline it here.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 100 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 8effa1870494
dispatching-spec-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Acendas/shipyard (2 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,738 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
break-complex-projects-into-milestones
How to use AI to generate structured Work Breakdown Structures (WBS), 4-week critical path roadmaps, and verifiable milestone deliverables.
iterate-step-by-step
How to use the 4-Turn Conversational Scaffolding framework to build complex code, strategy, and content incrementally without token exhaustion or quality degradation.
write-epic
Produces a complete epic definition following Atlassian agile guidance. An epic captures a large initiative that is too big for a single sprint and must be decomposed into user stories.
write-user-story
Produces a complete, ready-to-groom user story following the standard Atlassian/agile format. It applies the INVEST criteria and the 3 Cs framework (Card, Conversation, Confirmation) to ensure each story is well-scoped, valuable, and testable — not just syntactically correct.
engenharia-de-requisitos
Use when doing requirements engineering, business analysis, or the software-engineering stage of discovering / specifying / validating / managing requirements — the stage BEFORE code (what to build) and AFTER (was the right thing built?), for new projects and for evolutions of existing ones. Triggers (EN)…
engenharia-de-requisitos
Use when doing requirements engineering, business analysis, or the software-engineering stage of discovering / specifying / validating / managing requirements — the stage BEFORE code (what to build) and AFTER (was the right thing built?), for new projects and for evolutions of existing ones. Triggers (EN)…