A workflow for reviewing a specification against the current codebase and documentation. A specification is a written description of what software should do and the conditions it must meet.

Use it to locate a spec, compare it with code and docs, check whether its contracts are complete, classify gaps, and produce a structured review.

It makes unclear requirements and missing implementation details easier to identify before development starts.

How clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools configures Claude Code and Codex

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file

curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools/main/.agents/skills/spec-review/SKILL.md

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools/spec-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools/spec-review)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools/spec-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.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools/spec-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

Per session 0 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.

When invoked 540 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.

Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.

Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.

Token cost

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	$0.00000	$0.00540
Opus 5.5	$0.00000	$0.00216
Sonnet 5.5	$0.00000	$0.00108
Haiku 4.5	$0.00000	$0.00054

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 0d1230e44d79, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

spec-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 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.

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.

.agents/skills/spec-review/SKILL.md · 53 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Spec Review skill

name: spec-review version: 0.1.1 summary: Reusable workflow for reviewing specs in this repository with a consistent readiness rubric and output template.

Purpose

Help an agent review a specification for clarity, implementation readiness, and execution readiness against the current codebase. Use a common template so reviews stay consistent across documents and reviewers.

Activation conditions

Activate when an agent needs to:

review a new or revised spec
assess whether a spec is implementation-ready or execution-ready
identify whether feedback is a spec issue or an implementation issue
compare a spec against the current src/ contract surface and docs

Surface area (actions)

locate-spec
compare-against-code
assess-contract-completeness
classify-gaps
produce-review

Core guidance

Read the spec first, then compare it against the relevant code, docs, and tests.
Separate spec gaps from implementation gaps.
Check for: problem clarity, scope boundaries, explicit contracts, acceptance criteria, non-goals, and consistency with existing behavior.
Prefer precise feedback that names the missing contract, unclear rule, or inconsistent behavior.
Use the shared review template in references/spec-review-template.md for the final output.
If the spec is not ready, say exactly what must be clarified before implementation can start.
Classify each blocker as either a spec gap or an implementation contract gap and stop at that boundary.

Inputs & outputs

review-spec(input: { specPath, relatedPaths?, focusAreas? }) -> { verdict, risks, specGaps, implementationGaps, recommendations }
compare-against-code(input: { specPath, codePaths[] }) -> { matches, mismatches, notes }
produce-review(input: { specPath, findings[] }) -> { summary, verdict, checklist, nextStep }

Failure handling

If the spec file is missing, stop and report the missing path explicitly.
If the spec is ambiguous, classify each concern as either "spec" or "implementation" instead of blending them.
If the review cannot be grounded in the current repo, state that the spec is not reviewable yet.

Read the full file on GitHub · 53 lines

Files

What ships with it

2 files 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.

Changes

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 Changed 0d1230e44d79
2mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4f9e909c49bb

Subscribe to this mod's changes

spec-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository clivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools (14 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 540 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.

Code review ai ai-agents android automation ios ios-app

spec-review next to 6 skills from other repositories
Mod	Type	Stars	Last push	Licence	Scan	Tokens	Works with
spec-reviewclivejefferies/mobile-debug-tools	Skill	14	yesterday	Apache-2.0	A	0	Claude Code, Codex
android-compose-prokelvinkosbab/AppBootstrapAI	Skill	8	today	MIT	A	56	Claude Code
android-coroutines-prokelvinkosbab/AppBootstrapAI	Skill	8	today	MIT	A	56	Claude Code
coredata-swift6-prokelvinkosbab/AppBootstrapAI	Skill	8	today	MIT	A	44	Claude Code
swift-error-handling-prokelvinkosbab/AppBootstrapAI	Skill	8	today	MIT	A	44	Claude Code
swift-package-prokelvinkosbab/AppBootstrapAI	Skill	8	today	MIT	A	37	Claude Code
swift-logging-prokelvinkosbab/AppBootstrapAI	Skill	8	today	MIT	A	34	Claude Code

mobile-debug-tools: Skill for Claude Code