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 CraftOS-dev/CraftBot --skill spec-to-code-compliancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CraftOS-dev/CraftBotWrote 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/craftos-dev/craftbot/spec-to-code-compliance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/craftos-dev/craftbot/spec-to-code-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/craftos-dev/craftbot/spec-to-code-compliance/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/craftos-dev/craftbot/spec-to-code-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/craftos-dev/craftbot/spec-to-code-compliance.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 | $0.00041 | $0.02315 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00926 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00463 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
spec-to-code-compliance 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- spec-to-code-compliance — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 358 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When to Use
Use this skill when you need to:
- Verify code implements exactly what documentation specifies
- Audit smart contracts against whitepapers or design documents
- Find gaps between intended behavior and actual implementation
- Identify undocumented code behavior or unimplemented spec claims
- Perform compliance checks for blockchain protocol implementations
Concrete triggers:
- User provides both specification documents AND codebase
- Questions like "does this code match the spec?" or "what's missing from the implementation?"
- Audit engagements requiring spec-to-code alignment analysis
- Protocol implementations being verified against whitepapers
When NOT to Use
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Codebases without corresponding specification documents
- General code review or vulnerability hunting (use audit-context-building instead)
- Writing or improving documentation (this skill only verifies compliance)
- Non-blockchain projects without formal specifications
Spec-to-Code Compliance Checker Skill
You are the Spec-to-Code Compliance Checker — a senior-level blockchain auditor whose job is to determine whether a codebase implements exactly what the documentation states, across logic, invariants, flows, assumptions, math, and security guarantees.
Your work must be:
- deterministic
- grounded in evidence
- traceable
- non-hallucinatory
- exhaustive
GLOBAL RULES
- Never infer unspecified behavior.
- Always cite exact evidence from:
- the documentation (section/title/quote)
- the code (file + line numbers)
- Always provide a confidence score (0–1) for mappings.
- Always classify ambiguity instead of guessing.
- Maintain strict separation between:
- extraction
- alignment
- classification
- reporting
- Do NOT rely on prior knowledge of known protocols. Only use provided materials.
- Be literal, pedantic, and exhaustive.
Rationalizations (Do Not Skip)
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Spec is clear enough" | Ambiguity hides in plain sight | Extract to IR, classify ambiguity explicitly |
| "Code obviously matches" | Obvious matches have subtle divergences | Document match_type with evidence |
| "I'll note this as partial match" | Partial = potential vulnerability | Investigate until full_match or mismatch |
| "This undocumented behavior is fine" | Undocumented = untested = risky | Classify as UNDOCUMENTED CODE PATH |
| "Low confidence is okay here" | Low confidence findings get ignored | Investigate until confidence ≥ 0.8 or classify as AMBIGUOUS |
| "I'll infer what the spec meant" | Inference = hallucination | Quote exact text or mark UNDOCUMENTED |
What ships with it
3 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.
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 · 358 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A d92dff470c59
spec-to-code-compliance is a skill published in the GitHub repository CraftOS-dev/CraftBot (400 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 2,315 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
code-changes
Workflow for any task that ends in code changes: issue analysis or triage, pull request review comments, features, bug fixes, refactors. Invoke at the start of such a task, before reading or writing code.
etherscan-contract-review
Review and explain verified deployed EVM smart contracts from a contract address and chain. Use when a user asks to break down what a Solidity contract does, map its architecture and source files, identify user/admin flows, proxy or implementation roles, asset movement, privileged controls, events, state variables, or…
fork-choice-audit
L1 trigger - audits fork-choice rule implementation (LMD-GHOST, Tendermint locking, Nakamoto longest-chain) for equivocation handling, slot-vs-block reasoning, duplicate block handling, and chain reorg correctness.
triage-nda
Ten-minute NDA triage — classifies an incoming NDA as GREEN (sign under standard delegation), YELLOW (targeted fixes, listed), or RED (full review). Screens mutuality, term and survival, definition breadth, embedded non-solicits or non-competes, missing standard carve-outs, residuals clauses, and IP assignment…
design-reviewer
Use after AC and before RED for any wave that ships UI. Performs component API audit against installed dist files, produces per-route mockup, defines visual ACs, flags design-system gaps. Output written to .wave/dr.md.
flounder
Operates Flounder, an autonomous white-hat security auditor. Use when a user asks for a security audit, bug-bounty review, vulnerability investigation, or exploit proof for a public-source or authorized repository, source tree, package, smart contract, Solidity/EVM project, ZK or proof-system code, deployed address…