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 skills add adamdaw/claude-code-skills --skill spec-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/adamdaw/claude-code-skillsWrote 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/adamdaw/claude-code-skills/spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/adamdaw/claude-code-skills/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/adamdaw/claude-code-skills/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 | $0.00085 | $0.02313 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.01156 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00463 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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 — 212 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec review (Gate 1)
Runs one cold pass over a GitHub work-item issue treated as the Software Design Document. The reviewer is a fresh subagent invocation; it reads the published issue body and reports findings. Nothing is built.
Throughout, the Architect means the human who owns the spec and declares the gate green.
Why a subagent and not this session
The session that authored the spec cannot review it. A fresh invocation is the structural independence reset — a fresh window resets memory, but a separate invocation is what establishes production independence. Never review a spec you wrote in the same context.
Inputs the reviewer gets, and nothing else
- The issue number and the repo (
owner/name). - The tracker ticket ID, so it can read the SRS. This gate checks that the SDD faithfully encodes the SRS, so withholding the SRS makes that uncheckable — and invites the reviewer to demand a Requirements section the house SDD skeleton deliberately does not have. The SRS is a source artifact, not deliberation.
- The path to
CONSTITUTION.mdin the local checkout. If that checkout is a stale mirror, tell the reviewer to read it fromorigin/maininstead. - The prompt below, verbatim.
It fetches both bodies itself. Do not paste them in, do not summarise them, and do not mention what you think is wrong with either.
Never pass prior-pass findings, your own reasoning, or the ticket's internal rationale. Those are the deliberation record. Feeding any of them back means the pass returns your own conclusions instead of an independent read.
Where the record lives
Keep two files per ticket, wherever your team keeps its work-item records:
work-item.md— the spec body. The authoring surface.spec-review.md— every pass appended under a## Pass Nheading, with the disposition written under each finding.
Edit work-item.md, then push it. Never edit the issue body on GitHub
directly. One direction only is what keeps the two from drifting.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 212 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 78889beec1e1
spec-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository adamdaw/claude-code-skills (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 2,313 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…