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 agentmods add skills/designpipe/exfig/openspec-verify-changenpx skills add DesignPipe/exfig --skill openspec-verify-changegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DesignPipe/exfigWrote 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/designpipe/exfig/openspec-verify-change)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/designpipe/exfig/openspec-verify-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/designpipe/exfig/openspec-verify-change.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00032 | $0.01441 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00720 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
openspec-verify-change 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 4d 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.
This is a copy
75% identical to openspec-verify-change — 28 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
Steps
-
If no change name provided, prompt for selection
Run
openspec list --jsonto get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists). Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
-
Check status to understand the schema
openspec status --change "<name>" --jsonParse the JSON to understand:
schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")- Which artifacts exist for this change
-
Get the change directory and load artifacts
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --jsonThis returns the change directory and context files. Read all available artifacts from
contextFiles. -
Initialize verification report structure
Create a report structure with three dimensions:
- Completeness: Track tasks and spec coverage
- Correctness: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
- Coherence: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
-
Verify Completeness
Task Completion:
- If tasks.md exists in contextFiles, read it
- Parse checkboxes:
- [ ](incomplete) vs- [x](complete) - Count complete vs total tasks
- If incomplete tasks exist:
- Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
- Recommendation: "Complete task: " or "Mark as done if already implemented"
Spec Coverage:
- If delta specs exist in
openspec/changes/<name>/specs/:- Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
- For each requirement:
- Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
- Assess if implementation likely exists
- If requirements appear unimplemented:
- Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: "
- Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: "
-
Verify Correctness
Requirement Implementation Mapping:
- For each requirement from delta specs:
- Search codebase for implementation evidence
- If found, note file paths and line ranges
- Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
- If divergence detected:
- Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: "
- Recommendation: "Review : against requirement X"
Scenario Coverage:
- For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
- Check if conditions are handled in code
- Check if tests exist covering the scenario
- If scenario appears uncovered:
- Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: "
- Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: "
- For each requirement from delta specs:
-
Verify Coherence
Design Adherence:
- If design.md exists in contextFiles:
- Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
- Verify implementation follows those decisions
- If contradiction detected:
- Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: "
- Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
- If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
Code Pattern Consistency:
- Review new code for consistency with project patterns
- Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
- If significant deviations found:
- Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: "
- Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: "
- If design.md exists in contextFiles:
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 169 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 94c988710e2a
openspec-verify-change is a skill published in the GitHub repository DesignPipe/exfig (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,441 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 75% identical to openspec-verify-change, differing in 28 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
update-store
ストア情報の更新自動化 — スクリーンショット撮影(シミュレーター × モック画面 × Marionette MCP)とメタデータテキスト更新。ストア更新、スクショ更新、App Store / Google Play のメタデータ更新、リリースノート作成の際に使用すること。.
mobile-automation
MCP (dart-mcp + Marionette) を使ったFlutterアプリのE2E自動化・UI検証ガイド。シミュレーターでのUI動作確認、モックプレビュー検証、Bridge経由のE2Eテスト、スクリーンショット撮影など、アプリの動作検証が必要なときに使う。「動作確認して」「UIを検証して」「E2Eテスト」「シミュレーターで確認」「モックで確認」と言われたときや、UI変更後の検証フェーズで使用すること。.
submit-store-review
App Store Connect・Google Playの現在の公開版をAPIで調べ、既存の最新安定ビルドとの差分から4言語のリリースノートを作成し、CLI/APIで審査へ提出・再提出する。新しいビルドを作るrelease-appとは分離し、「最新を審査提出して」「ストア審査へ提出して」「App Reviewに出して」「Google Playの審査を進めて」「却下対応して再提出して」と依頼されたときに使用する。.
triage
Skill "triage" from K9i-0/ccpocket, covering issue / pr triage, 原則, phase 0: 種別判定, prフロー and phase 1: intake / ready判定.
flutter-ui-design
SSOT (Single Source of Truth) + UDF (Unidirectional Data Flow) に基づく設計。.
release-app
アプリのリリース(バージョンbump + CHANGELOG + タグ → GH Actions で自動ビルド・配布)。iOS / Android / macOS / Linux / Windows の任意の組み合わせでリリースできる。「リリース」「バージョン上げて」「リリースして」と言われたときに使う。.