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/ship-specnpx skills add Acendas/shipyard --skill ship-specgit 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/ship-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/acendas/shipyard/ship-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/acendas/shipyard/ship-spec.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 | $0.00013 | $0.05826 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.02913 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00583 |
Grade A, and why
ship-spec 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 4d 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 — 381 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Shipyard: Spec Manager
Browse, search, and manage the product specification.
Context
!shipyard-context spec-context
Paths. All file ops use the absolute SHIPYARD_DATA prefix from the context block. No ~, $HOME, or shell variables in file_path. Bash is for shipyard-context (reads) and shipyard-data feature|backlog|idea ... (state mutations) ONLY — no other shell. Never use echo/printf/shell redirects to write state files — use the Write tool (auto-approved for SHIPYARD_DATA). Never hand-Edit feature-file frontmatter or BACKLOG.md IDs/last_groomed — those are CLI-owned (feature set, feature set-status, backlog add|remove|rank|set). Feature/epic bodies and the BACKLOG.md Overrides section remain Edit-tool surface.
Onboarding gate. If the bundled context contains SHIPYARD_ONBOARDING_REQUIRED=true, run the exact SHIPYARD_ONBOARDING_COMMAND once with Bash, report the CLI output to the user, and STOP. Do not infer setup state by reading or writing Shipyard state files; onboarding decisions are CLI-owned.
Render before asking. Before every AskUserQuestion, render the decision context — the scenarios, concrete examples, tradeoffs, and any verbatim content being approved — as chat text; the tool call then carries only the short question and option labels. A bare AskUserQuestion with no rendered context above it is a bug (the window is too small to carry a real decision). Content that exists only in a Read result, a subagent/Agent return, a dossier file, or the question/option strings themselves does not count as rendered (the UI shows a compact card) — restate it as assistant chat text immediately above the ask.
Input
$ARGUMENTS
Behavior
No arguments → Interactive Spec Browser
Start an interactive browsing session. Show the top level and let the user drill down.
Level 1: Spec Overview
Read all spec files and present:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SPEC — [Project Name]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
EPICS
[1] E001: [title]
[████████░░] 80% | 4/5 features done | 24/30 pts
[2] E002: [title]
[███░░░░░░░] 30% | 1/3 features done | 5/18 pts
UNGROUPED FEATURES
[3] F007: [title] — [status] | [pts] pts
[4] F012: [title] — [status] | [pts] pts
COMPLETION
Overall: [████████░░] [N]% | [done pts]/[total pts] story points
By status: [N] proposed → [N] approved → [N] in-progress → [N] done → [N] released
Bugs: [N] open | Ideas: [N] pending
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 381 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 359761beb4d8
ship-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository Acendas/shipyard (2 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 5,826 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
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)…
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.
code-reviewer
Professional Code Reviewer Expert skill. Orchestrate technical collaboration, design reviews, sprint planning, and system diagnostics.
pr-review-expert
Professional Pr Review Expert skill. Orchestrate technical collaboration, design reviews, sprint planning, and system diagnostics.