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 digital-stoic-org/agent-skills --skill openspec-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/digital-stoic-org/agent-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/digital-stoic-org/agent-skills/openspec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/digital-stoic-org/agent-skills/openspec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/digital-stoic-org/agent-skills/openspec-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/digital-stoic-org/agent-skills/openspec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/digital-stoic-org/agent-skills/openspec-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 4 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00058 | $0.01079 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00432 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00216 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
openspec-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
OpenSpec Review
Senior tech lead + architect review gate. Positioned between /openspec-plan tasks and /openspec-develop. Reviews all artifacts as a coherent whole — challenges whether the design is worth implementing.
You are reviewing: $ARGUMENTS
Commands
review
Pre-implementation review of all OpenSpec artifacts for a change.
Input: $ARGUMENTS = change-id
Workflow:
flowchart LR
A["Load\nartifacts"] --> B["6-lens\nanalysis"]
B --> C["Pre-mortem"]
C --> D["Socratic\nopenings"]
D --> E["Verdict"]
classDef action fill:#E1BEE7,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#000
class A,B,C,D,E action
- Load artifacts — read all in order:
| File | Required | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
openspec/project.md |
yes | Mode, philosophy, exploration strategy |
openspec/changes/{id}/proposal.md |
yes | Problem, scope, acceptance criteria |
openspec/changes/{id}/design.md |
if exists | BC scope, containers, flows, ADRs |
openspec/changes/{id}/tasks.md |
yes | Task breakdown, gates |
openspec/changes/{id}/tests.md |
if exists | Verification strategy |
openspec/changes/{id}/specs/*.md |
if exist | Detailed requirements |
If proposal.md or tasks.md missing → ⛔ Cannot review. Run /openspec-plan first.
-
Spawn devil-advocate (via Agent tool, subagent_type:
dstoic:devil-advocate:devil-advocate) in background — feed target description + all artifact paths. Merge findings into Lenses 1, 4, 6. -
Run 6 lenses — see
reference.md§Six Lenses for full checklists:
| Lens | Question | Key checks |
|---|---|---|
| 1: Problem-Solution Fit | Right problem? | Alternatives considered, non-goals, effort proportionality |
| 2: Design Soundness | Will it work? | BC boundaries, sensitivity points, reversibility (one-way doors) |
| 3: Best Practices | What should be here? | Error handling, security, observability, migration |
| 4: Over-Engineering | What shouldn't be here? | YAGNI, premature generalization, gold-plating |
| 5: Task & Test Quality | Implementable? | Outcome phrasing, gate placement, test coverage |
| 6: Gap Detection | What's missing? | Operational readiness, blast radius, integration risks |
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 100 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A d381c2f0aa34
openspec-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository digital-stoic-org/agent-skills (20 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,079 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
tech-debt
Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt across the codebase — scans for debt indicators, maintains a register.
pr-review-triage
Watch open PRs, check CI status, review staleness, merge conflicts, and unanswered review comments. Produces a prioritized watchlist.
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
feature-dev
Guide a feature implementation through a structured seven-phase workflow with deep codebase understanding, clarifying questions, parallel architecture design, and quality review. Use this skill when the user asks to build a new feature, add functionality, or wants a methodical approach to implementation rather than…