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 chan4lk/specclaw --skill bf-blueprintgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chan4lk/specclawWrote 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/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-blueprint)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-blueprint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-blueprint/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/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-blueprint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-blueprint.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 | $0.00245 | $0.02650 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00122 | $0.01325 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00530 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00265 |
Grade A, and why
bf-blueprint 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
specclaw bf-blueprint
First, run specclaw-ensure-init .specclaw — idempotently creates .specclaw/ if it doesn't exist (silent if already initialized; auto-inits using the current directory's basename as the project name).
Write .specclaw/analysis/target-architecture.md: the target architecture of a brownfield rebuild, synthesised from decisions already recorded. Read-only side-command — no specclaw-validate-change call, no <change> involved, matching the analyze/architecture/domain/clarify/rebuild-plan pattern.
Why this command exists. The pipeline was asymmetric. The legacy side had architecture.md, domain-model.md and module-map.md; the target side had its architecture scattered across decisions.md, ADRs, bootstrap-plan.md and the backlog — nothing that showed the shape of the thing being built, and nothing anyone could put in front of a client.
It derives, it never decides. Every claim about the target rests on a recorded SQ/CQ/UQ decision and cites it by id. Nothing here chooses a stack, a database, a hosting model or an auth approach; where no decision exists, that part of the blueprint renders PROVISIONAL(<id>). Changing what this document says means answering a question in clarifications.md and re-running --resolve — never editing the blueprint.
It runs in the legacy repo. Like every other bf- analysis command, it writes into .specclaw/analysis/ here, and is never run in the rebuild repo. The output travels into the new repo as readability, never as something a verdict is computed from.
Step 1 — Collect
specclaw-bf-blueprint collect .specclaw
If it exits non-zero, surface its stderr message to the user verbatim and stop. There is one refusal, and it names every missing document and the command that produces each: architecture.md (/specclaw:bf-architecture), module-map.md (/specclaw:bf-domain), decisions.md (/specclaw:bf-clarify, then --resolve). Don't retry, don't attempt a partial blueprint from partial input, and never substitute your own reading of the codebase for a missing decision record.
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 · 96 lines · 245 tokens per session scan A d16a270ff6ef
bf-blueprint is a skill published in the GitHub repository chan4lk/specclaw (12 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 245 tokens to every session and 2,650 once invoked, about $0.0012 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
from-intake
A workflow for reviewing material brought from another workspace and carrying relevant brand evidence into the project's assets. It checks inventories, brand guides, logos, and image sources before anything is used.
upload-assets
An asset-upload workflow that sends files to a console’s content-delivery network and prepares a review-request payload for a person to submit.
wire-sdk
An SDK integration guide for 앱인토스, a platform for building apps inside Toss. It covers permissions, persistent storage, sharing links, screen controls, safe-area spacing, and secure WebSocket connections.
review-spec
A workflow for comparing an existing feature specification with the project's review checklist and implementation. It looks for missing requirements, differences between documented screens and actual screens, and lessons from rejected submissions.
optimize-seo-geo
A workflow for filling only the SEO and GEO sections of a post's front matter. SEO helps a page appear in search results, while GEO prepares information for answer systems that may quote or cite it.
write-spec
A feature-specification workflow that turns a feature request into a Markdown file describing screens, acceptance checks, boundaries, and unanswered questions.