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/epicsagas/epic-harness/specnpx skills add epicsagas/epic-harness --skill specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/epicsagas/epic-harnessWrote 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/epicsagas/epic-harness/spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/spec.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00764 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00382 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
spec scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec — Define What to Build
CRITICAL: Run HARNESS_DIR=$(epic-harness path) first. NEVER use .harness/ in the project directory.
Process
-
Understand the request
- Read any existing context (CLAUDE.md, README, codebase structure)
- If the request is vague, ask focused questions (max 3 at a time)
- Never assume — clarify ambiguity before proceeding
-
Produce the spec Write a concise spec covering:
- Goal: One sentence — what does this achieve?
- Scope: What's included and explicitly excluded
- Requirements: Numbered list (
R1,R2, ...) of concrete, testable behaviors - Acceptance criteria: Numbered list (
AC1,AC2, ...) — observable outcomes that prove each requirement is met - Technical notes: Constraints, dependencies, edge cases
-
Confirm with user Show the spec in digestible chunks. Get explicit approval before proceeding.
Output
Save the approved spec to $HARNESS_DIR/specs/SPEC-{timestamp}.md using this exact format:
---
status: approved
created: {ISO-8601 timestamp}
goal_slug: {kebab-case-goal-summary}
---
# SPEC-{timestamp}: {Goal}
## Goal
{One sentence}
## Scope
- In: {what is included}
- Out: {what is explicitly excluded}
## Requirements
- R1: {concrete testable behavior}
- R2: {concrete testable behavior}
## Acceptance Criteria
- AC1 (R1): {observable outcome proving R1}
- AC2 (R2): {observable outcome proving R2}
## Technical Notes
{Constraints, dependencies, edge cases}
After saving:
- Count the Requirements (R1, R2, ...). If 3 or more, check team status:
epic team status.- If no team is linked: suggest "This spec has N requirements. Consider running
/teamto set up a project-specific agent team before/go." - If a team is already linked: skip this hint.
- If no team is linked: suggest "This spec has N requirements. Consider running
- Tell the user: "Spec saved. Run
/goto start building."
Anti-Rationalization
| Excuse | Rebuttal | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| "It's a small change, I'll just code it" | Small changes still have wrong assumptions | Write the spec — it takes 2 minutes |
| "I'll refine the spec after coding" | Spec after code is documentation, not planning | Spec first, code second |
| "The user didn't give me enough detail" | Then ask — don't invent requirements | Ask focused questions, max 3 at a time |
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 88 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 7514461f3a95
spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository epicsagas/epic-harness (18 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 764 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
subagent-driven-development
Execute plans via delegatetask subagents (2-stage review).
duckduckgo-search
Free keyless web, news, and image search via ddgs.
mcporter
List, auth, and call MCP servers/tools from the terminal.
article-writing
Write articles, guides, blog posts, tutorials, newsletter issues, and other long-form content in a distinctive voice derived from supplied examples or brand guidance. Use when the user wants polished written content longer than a paragraph, especially when voice consistency, structure, and credibility matter.
mem0-oss-to-platform
Plan and then execute a migration of a project from the mem0 open-source / self-hosted SDK (the local Memory class) to the mem0 Platform / hosted / managed SDK (the MemoryClient class). Use this whenever a developer wants to move, switch, or migrate their mem0 usage off OSS/self-hosted to the hosted API — e.g.…
complete-partial-pr
Evaluate and complete an issue or PR where the submitted patch fixes only a narrow symptom of the reported pain point. Use when a contribution may miss adjacent integration surfaces, provider/spec semantics, roundtrip behavior, tests, docs, or historical maintainer decisions.