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/dzhng/duet-agent/implement-specnpx skills add dzhng/duet-agent --skill implement-specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dzhng/duet-agentWhat 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 | $0.00041 | $0.03357 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.01679 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00671 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00336 |
Grade A, and why
implement-spec 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 3d 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
98% identical to implement-spec — 4 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 — 235 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Implement Spec
Build the active spec to completion, one reviewable pass at a time. The spec is the source of truth, but the architecture is allowed to improve when the code teaches you the plan is stale.
A pass (usually one slice) is a commit checkpoint, not a stopping point. The job is the whole spec — every slice, every global TODO — not the first green commit. Finishing a pass means starting the next one, not handing back to the user. Only stop when the spec is fully implemented (or a genuine blocker needs a decision only the user can make).
Work in parallel wherever the graph allows. Do not walk the ladder one slice at a time when slices are independent. Read the spec's dependency graph as a wavefront and delegate independent passes to subagents that run concurrently (see Rules) — you orchestrate and integrate; only serialize what genuinely depends on prior work.
Workflow
- Read the repo README, the spec README, and the next slice before editing. Load any skills named by the spec. Identify the current pickup point, global TODOs, required gates, and what must stay green. If a multi-slice spec lacks a live handoff prompt, add one before the first pass ends.
- Reconcile the plan with the current code. If the slice would preserve a development-only shim, duplicated type, weak wrapper, or obsolete path, replace it with the simpler architecture and update the spec handoff.
- Implement one coherent pass: usually one slice, one vertical checkpoint, or one architecture correction. Keep the review surface small enough to audit.
- Verify the actual contract. For behavior changes, run the focused unit tests first; for browser-visible work, use the real browser/harness and inspect screenshots so the subject is framed and readable, not merely nonblank. A visual CHANGE carries two extra proofs before you claim it: a byte/pixel diff against the pre-change baseline on the production route (static checks and re-anchored assertions all pass on a no-op — a palette pass once shipped "verified" while the production frame was byte-identical), and an unprimed screenshot-critique — at the user's reported framing when the pass answers their visual bug report — before declaring it fixed; the implementer's eyes are primed by the fix and repeatedly pass what fresh eyes catch. Never weaken an existing default gate or repin a failing contract without proving the old contract is wrong.
- Review the change list and clean up after every pass, before committing.
Read
git status/git diff --statline by line and account for every path: one-off probes, shot scripts, scratch files,nohup.out, ad-hoc screenshot dirs, and SPIKE/debug notes never enter a commit — scratch stays out of the tree; review evidence belongs in the spec'sassets/; anything else gets deleted. A file you can't name the durable purpose of does not ship. Delegated agents leak these; the integrating reviewer re-checks the merged tree with the same eye.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 235 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A a54b5ffcae40
implement-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository dzhng/duet-agent (42 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 3,357 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to implement-spec, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
harness-creator
Build, audit, and improve harnesses that make AI coding agents reliable: AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md instruction files, feature/state tracking, verification gates, scope boundaries, session handoff, memory persistence, context budgets, tool-permission safety, and multi-agent coordination. Use this whenever a coding agent is…
evaluator-write-qa
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for sprint QA and QA report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during qa mode.
evaluator-review-contract-parallel
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel sprint contract review before implementation. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during review mode.
evaluator-write-final-parallel
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel final QA report aggregation. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during evaluatorfinalparallel.
evaluator-write-qa-parallel
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel sprint QA and QA report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during evaluatorqaparallel.
evaluator-write-retest-parallel
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for parallel sprint retest and retest report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during evaluatorretestparallel.