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 anton-abyzov/specweave --skill sw-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anton-abyzov/specweaveWrote 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/anton-abyzov/specweave/sw-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/anton-abyzov/specweave/sw-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anton-abyzov/specweave/sw-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/anton-abyzov/specweave/sw-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/anton-abyzov/specweave/sw-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00045 | $0.01215 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00486 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00243 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
sw-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 today.
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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
sw-review: adversarial review with citations
A fresh reader hunts for real failures in the increment's diff, cites path:line for
each, re-checks every claim, and writes .specweave/increments/<id>/reports/review.md.
This is also the quality check: its verdict says whether the increment is ready.
Non-negotiables
- Fresh context. The session that wrote the code never approves it. Use a new session, a subagent if your tool supports them, or another model (below). If you wrote this code here and cannot get a fresh context, say so in the report.
- Every finding cites
path:lineand a concrete failure: input or state leads to wrong output, a crash, a hang, data loss or a leak. "Consider refactoring" is not one. - Re-verify. Re-open the lines and, where a test can show it, run one. Drop what
does not survive; mark what you could not prove as
plausible. - Severity is critical, high, medium or low. Critical and high block the close.
- At most 5 nits, in one line at the end.
Steps
- Evidence first.
specweave verify(or its existingreports/verify.md): red tests, lint or build are findings before any reading. - Scope. Read spec.md (ACs, Approach, the tasks'
Files) and review that diff, not the repository:git diff $(git merge-base HEAD origin/HEAD)...HEAD -- <Files>. - Pass, in this order: correctness (logic, error paths, races, off-by-one) →
security (injection, path traversal, secrets, unsafe exec) → spec compliance (ACs
claimed but not implemented, tests that assert nothing, mock the subject or only
restate the implementation) →
portability (bash-only commands,
\paths, BOMs,>>in PowerShell).--full: run the three lenses correctness, security and spec compliance separately (in parallel if your tool has subagents). Each lens returns only a JSON list of{"severity","file","line","summary","verified"}; merge by deduping on (file,line), then re-open every line yourself before it goes in the report. - Report in the shape below;
specweave completereads its verdict line. Optional machine form,reports/review.json, nothing gates on it:{"ok":false,"findings":[{"severity":"high","file":"src/a.ts","line":88,"summary":"...","verified":true}]}. - Hand back. Each critical or high finding becomes a task in spec.md
(
### T-09 Fix empty evidence+- AC: AC-02 | Files: ... | Test: ...) for sw-do, or is fixed and re-tested now. Then verify again and close with sw-done.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- today Changed · +1 lines 0cfa0aad4514
- yesterday Changed · +3 lines b72f52dbd10e
- 10d ago Changed · +19 lines 09a54502cb65
- 16d ago Changed · +1 lines 9c3c8d746cc9
- 1mo ago Changed · -3 lines · +3 tokens per session 7bb2e55efe6c
- 1mo ago First seen · 66 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 8fb2951a8b5a
sw-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository anton-abyzov/specweave (169 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 1,215 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
acceptance
Test a PR review end to end and prove it honoured every guarantee in INVARIANTS.md. Use when asked to test/validate a review of a pull request, to check a finished run, or to run the 3-provider x 2-runtime acceptance matrix. Drives pr-review verify and scripts/acceptance.mjs — never hand-checks the guarantees.
help
One skill, all the docs. Read the matching reference file for the topic — each is the full guide, kept short so this index stays cheap to load.
validate-recipe
Verified build/test/run commands for pr-review. Used by /validate; also useful to any agent that needs to build, test, or launch this project.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
audit-ci
Run and analyze Elements cold CI performance profiles and propose evidence-backed build, test, lint, and dependency-graph improvements. Use whenever asked to profile or benchmark pnpm run ci, rerun ci:profile, create a CI performance audit, compare CI timings, find bottlenecks or the completion path, investigate a CI…