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 ddddjaak/se-skills --skill requirements-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ddddjaak/se-skillsWrote 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/ddddjaak/se-skills/requirements-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ddddjaak/se-skills/requirements-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ddddjaak/se-skills/requirements-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/ddddjaak/se-skills/requirements-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ddddjaak/se-skills/requirements-review.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 | $0.00121 | $0.04064 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.02032 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00813 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00406 |
Grade A, and why
requirements-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 11d 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 — 300 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requirements Review
Overview
A requirements document is the foundation of every downstream artifact. A gap missed here cascades into the architecture, the specifications, the test plan, and ultimately the product. Formal review checklists exist to catch these gaps systematically — but only if they are applied item by item, with every finding traced to a specific checklist criterion.
This skill loads the appropriate company review checklist (solution-level or software-level) and walks through every line item against the target requirements document. It produces a findings report where every observation cites a checklist item ID. It does not guess — if an item cannot be determined from the document alone, it is flagged for the author.
This is a focused requirements review, distinct from the broader four-lens design-review skill. design-review subjects any SE artifact (requirements, architecture, spec) to adversarial cross-department scrutiny through HW, SW, Test, and System lenses. This skill is narrower: one document type, one checklist, one goal — verify the requirements document is complete, correct, consistent, and traceable before it feeds downstream.
When to Use
- A requirements document (system or software) is complete and ready for formal peer review
- Before requirements are handed off to
architecture-design— catch gaps before architecture rework - A downstream consumer reports that a requirements document is ambiguous, incomplete, or lacks traceability
- Preparing for a milestone review (requirements freeze, design freeze) and need checklist evidence
- A new team member produced a requirements document and needs a structured review against company standards
- After a significant requirements change — verify the updated document still meets checklist criteria
When NOT to use:
- The artifact is an architecture document, specification, test plan, or test report (use the corresponding review skill or
design-review) - The document is a rough draft the author has not self-reviewed yet (self-review first)
- You need cross-department adversarial review (HW vs SW vs Test lens conflicts — use
design-review) - The ask is a quick informal read-through, not a formal checklist-based review
- Pure formatting or typo review (do not waste checklist machinery on mechanical corrections)
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 300 lines · 121 tokens per session scan A 45cd821d7844
requirements-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ddddjaak/se-skills (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 121 tokens to every session and 4,064 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
baoyu-youtube-transcript
A tool for downloading the written captions, subtitles, chapter information, speaker labels, and cover image from a YouTube video using its URL or ID.
orbit-notion
Open Orbit briefing skill — selected by the Orbit pipeline when Notion is the user's only connected connector, or when the user explicitly scopes their daily digest to Notion. Pulls the past 24 hours of document edits, comments, mentions, and database row changes from the user's authenticated Notion connection and…
instrument-data-to-allotrope
Convert laboratory instrument output files (PDF, CSV, Excel, TXT) to Allotrope Simple Model (ASM) JSON format or flattened 2D CSV. Use this skill when scientists need to standardize instrument data for LIMS systems, data lakes, or downstream analysis. Supports auto-detection of instrument types. Outputs include full…
feishu
Work with Feishu or Lark bots, docs, sheets, bitables, approval flows, and OpenAPI/MCP setup without hardcoding credentials.
read
Reads URLs and PDFs by fetching source content, defaulting to concise summaries for plain read requests and clean Markdown when asked to convert, save, quote, cite, or feed downstream work. Use when users ask in any language to read, fetch, check, summarize, quote, cite, convert, or save a URL or PDF. Not for local…
overleaf-sync
A two-way connection between a local paper folder and Overleaf, a web-based LaTeX editor for writing research papers. It lets you move changes between the local files and the shared Overleaf project.