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 benjaminthomas/spec-driven-dev --skill spec-verifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/benjaminthomas/spec-driven-devWrote 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/benjaminthomas/spec-driven-dev/spec-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/benjaminthomas/spec-driven-dev/spec-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/benjaminthomas/spec-driven-dev/spec-verify/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/benjaminthomas/spec-driven-dev/spec-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/benjaminthomas/spec-driven-dev/spec-verify.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00210 | $0.01927 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00084 | $0.00771 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00385 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00193 |
Grade C, and why
spec-verify scanned grade C with 2 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 1mo 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.
Tells the agent never to refusehighAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
If the user asks to verify a feature that wasn't built through `spec-create`, don't refuse — Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
Check whether the dev server is already running (e.g. `curl -sf http://localhost:3000` or the How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify Feature
Close the loop that spec-create → spec-implement leaves open: passing lint, typecheck, and
build proves the code compiles, not that the feature does what the spec says it does. This skill
reads a spec's acceptance criteria and checks each one against the actual running application —
clicking through the UI, calling the real API routes, or inspecting real database state produced
by the real code path. It produces a report the user can trust before shipping.
When there's no spec folder
If the user asks to verify a feature that wasn't built through spec-create, don't refuse —
interview them briefly for what was built and what "working" means (the golden path, the edge
cases they care about), then skip to Step 3 treating their
answers as the criteria list. The spec-driven path below is the common case, not the only one.
Step 1: Locate the spec
- If the user named a feature, use
specs/{feature}/. - Otherwise look for a
specs/*/README.mdwhose Task Status section is fully checked (all tasks- [x]) but has noverification-report.mdsibling yet — that's the most recently completed, not-yet-verified feature. - If
spec-implementhasn't finished all batches yet (some tasks still- [ ]), tell the user and ask whether to verify what's done so far or wait for the rest — verifying half a feature can produce confusing false failures for criteria that depend on an unbuilt task.
Step 2: Build the master criteria checklist
Read requirements.md's Acceptance Criteria section (feature-level, the whole thing working
end-to-end) and every tasks/task-*.md's own Acceptance Criteria section (task-level). Merge
them into one ordered list, each item tagged with its source (requirements or the task
filename).
Split the merged list into two kinds, because they're verified completely differently:
- Static criteria — things like "
npm run checkpasses" or "npx next buildsucceeds."spec-implement's review gate already ran these during the build. Re-run them once quickly to confirm nothing regressed since (uncommitted fix-ups, a rebase, etc.), but don't treat this as the interesting part of verification. - Behavioral criteria — anything that describes what a user, an API caller, or a scheduled job actually observes ("a FREE user sees a Renew button," "the cron doesn't double-send," "removing a member revokes their access on next request"). These are why this skill exists — they require driving the real app, not reading the diff.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 141 lines · 210 tokens per session scan C 326efa28505f
spec-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository benjaminthomas/spec-driven-dev (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 210 tokens to every session and 1,927 once invoked, about $0.0008 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 2 findings (tells the agent never to refuse, makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
browser-testing-with-devtools
Tests in real browsers via Chrome DevTools MCP. Use when building or debugging anything that runs in a browser. Use when you need to inspect the DOM, capture console errors, analyze network requests, profile performance, or verify visual output with real runtime data. Requires the chrome-devtools MCP server to be…
browser-testing-with-devtools
A guide for testing web pages and browser-based applications in a real Chrome browser through Chrome DevTools. It checks what is actually rendered and how the page behaves at runtime.
azure-microsoft-playwright-testing-ts
Run Playwright tests at scale with cloud-hosted browsers and integrated Azure portal reporting.
e2e-testing
End-to-end testing workflow with Playwright for browser automation, visual regression, cross-browser testing, and CI/CD integration.
screen-reader-testing
Test web applications with screen readers including VoiceOver, NVDA, and JAWS. Use when validating screen reader compatibility, debugging accessibility issues, or ensuring assistive technology support.