Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to alonf/specrew. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alonf/specrew/main/.squad/skills/public-readiness-release-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alonf/specrewWrote 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/alonf/specrew/public-readiness-release-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alonf/specrew/public-readiness-release-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alonf/specrew/public-readiness-release-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alonf/specrew/public-readiness-release-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alonf/specrew/public-readiness-release-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 28 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.00030 | $0.00639 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00319 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
public-readiness-release-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 7d 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
Use this when a feature changes versioning surfaces, retroactive changelog/tag history, public-readiness validator warnings, or future closeout governance. The review question is not just whether the docs read well; it is whether every release-truth surface and every validator lane tells the same story without rewriting history or promoting advisory checks into blockers.
Patterns
- Start from
.specrew\config.ymlas the source of truth, then verifyREADME.md,docs\versioning.md,CHANGELOG.md, the product/spec status surface, and annotated tags all mirror that same version. - Verify annotated tags with peeled refs, not just tag names: use local
git for-each-refplus remotegit ls-remote --tags origin refs/tags/<tag> refs/tags/<tag>^{}and compare the peeled commit to the required ship anchor. - Search the reviewed surfaces for
--force,--force-with-lease, or equivalent destructive rewrite language. Accept duplicate-tag handling only when it fails or stays advisory; never accept a review that rewrites existing tags. - Prove additive validator behavior with four lanes together: clean fixture pass with no warnings, drift fixture pass with soft warnings, a pre-feature live iteration pass unchanged, and repo-wide validator green.
- For future-closeout guidance, require explicit enumeration of the release-bookkeeping steps: config bump, changelog update, README/versioning refresh, release-tag creation, validator rerun, and the keep-open defer path.
Examples
extensions\specrew-speckit\scripts\validate-governance.ps1tests\unit\fixtures\015-public-readiness-pass\public-readiness-clean\tests\unit\fixtures\015-public-readiness-pass\public-readiness-drift\docs\versioning.mdCHANGELOG.md
Anti-Patterns
- Treating the tag-object SHA as the release anchor instead of the peeled commit.
- Accepting repo-wide validator green as proof that a new warning lane is additive.
- Clearing closeout guidance that says only "sync versioning" without naming the concrete release steps.
- Allowing any
--force-style tag creation or rewrite behavior in a historical release workflow.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 45 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A e8859cb32fa7
public-readiness-release-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository alonf/specrew (54 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 639 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
github
GitHub via gh CLI: PRs, issues, reviews, repos, auth.
github
Full GitHub CLI control — issues, PRs, code reviews, repo management. Uses gh CLI with auth detection, rate limiting, and templates. Triggers on: github, issue, pull request, PR, code review, repo, branch, label, assignee, milestone, release, workflow, actions.
release-pr-review
Review pass on an open release PR (release/ → main) — the step between git-wrapup and release-and-publish when a project releases in gated release PR mode. Reads the PR's commit range through the code-simplifier lens plus a correctness review, verifies whatever an automated reviewer left on the PR, lands fixes as…
release
Release gentle-pi through GitHub and npm. Trigger: release, publish, npm publish, GitHub release, version bump.
pre-publish-review
Nuclear-grade 12-agent pre-publish release gate. Runs /get-unpublished-changes to detect all changes since last npm release, spawns up to 10 ultrabrain agents for deep per-change analysis, invokes /review-work (orchestrator manual QA plus one gate reviewer) for holistic review, and 1 oracle for overall release…
parallel-pr-review
Use when asked to "review the open PRs", review a batch or stack of pull requests, or run a recurring PR-review pass on a repo — especially with many PRs, stacked branches, conflicts, or security-sensitive changes. Covers grouping, fan-out to review subagents, verdict synthesis, and posting.