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/anantadwi13/explorer/openspec-verify-changenpx skills add anantadwi13/explorer --skill openspec-verify-changegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anantadwi13/explorerWrote 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/anantadwi13/explorer/openspec-verify-change)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/anantadwi13/explorer/openspec-verify-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anantadwi13/explorer/openspec-verify-change.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01456 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00728 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00291 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
openspec-verify-change 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.
This is a copy
80% identical to openspec-verify-change — 22 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
Steps
-
If no change name provided, prompt for selection
Run
openspec list --jsonto get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists). Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
-
Check status to understand the schema
openspec status --change "<name>" --jsonParse the JSON to understand:
schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")- Which artifacts exist for this change
-
Get the change directory and load artifacts
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --jsonThis returns the change directory and
contextFiles(artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths). Read all available artifacts fromcontextFiles. -
Initialize verification report structure
Create a report structure with three dimensions:
- Completeness: Track tasks and spec coverage
- Correctness: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
- Coherence: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
-
Verify Completeness
Task Completion:
- If
contextFiles.tasksexists, read every file path in it - Parse checkboxes:
- [ ](incomplete) vs- [x](complete) - Count complete vs total tasks
- If incomplete tasks exist:
- Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
- Recommendation: "Complete task: " or "Mark as done if already implemented"
Spec Coverage:
- If delta specs exist in
openspec/changes/<name>/specs/:- Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
- For each requirement:
- Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
- Assess if implementation likely exists
- If requirements appear unimplemented:
- Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: "
- Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: "
- If
-
Verify Correctness
Requirement Implementation Mapping:
- For each requirement from delta specs:
- Search codebase for implementation evidence
- If found, note file paths and line ranges
- Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
- If divergence detected:
- Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: "
- Recommendation: "Review : against requirement X"
Scenario Coverage:
- For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
- Check if conditions are handled in code
- Check if tests exist covering the scenario
- If scenario appears uncovered:
- Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: "
- Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: "
- For each requirement from delta specs:
-
Verify Coherence
Design Adherence:
- If
contextFiles.designexists:- Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
- Verify implementation follows those decisions
- If contradiction detected:
- Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: "
- Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
- If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
Code Pattern Consistency:
- Review new code for consistency with project patterns
- Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
- If significant deviations found:
- Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: "
- Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: "
- If
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 · 169 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 5ef08a0802e2
openspec-verify-change is a skill published in the GitHub repository anantadwi13/explorer (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,456 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 80% identical to openspec-verify-change, differing in 22 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by BitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
miniapp-dev
Develops, maintains, and generates BitFun MiniApps (Zero-Dialect Runtime). Use when (1) working on miniapp framework code under src/crates/assembly/core/src/miniapp/ or src/web-ui/src/app/scenes/miniapps/; or (2) generating / creating / designing a NEW MiniApp for the user — including any request like "做一个小应用 / 生成…
commit-push-pr
Commit selected local changes, push the branch, and create or update a GitHub pull request with BitFun attribution. Use when the user asks to 提交 PR、提代码、commit and push、开 PR、create a pull request, or wants a Claude Code-like one-command PR publishing flow from BitFun.
investigate
Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. Four phases: investigate, analyze, hypothesize, implement. Iron Law: no fixes without root cause. Use when asked to "debug this", "fix this bug", "why is this broken", "investigate this error", or "root cause analysis". Proactively invoke this skill (do NOT debug…
wechat-article-writer
公众号/自媒体全流程。根据用户表述自动匹配:撰写文章、封面图、正文插图、风格提取。支持多种写作风格。当用户提到写公众号、技术博客、公众号封面、正文插图、步骤图、演示图、流程示意、分析写作风格、克隆文风、模仿爆款、提取风格时使用。详见 reference 目录。.
pr-review-canvas
Create a BitFun Canvas for reviewing a pull request, branch diff, or change set with Cursor-style diff cards, review maps, risk callouts, and focused reviewer flow. Use when the user asks for a PR review canvas, diff walkthrough, change-set overview, or visual review summary.