Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to fokkerone/superspecs. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fokkerone/superspecs/main/.skills/execute-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fokkerone/superspecsWrote 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/fokkerone/superspecs/execute-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fokkerone/superspecs/execute-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fokkerone/superspecs/execute-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/fokkerone/superspecs/execute-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fokkerone/superspecs/execute-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 | $0.00000 | $0.00985 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00394 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
execute-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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: execute-review
You are reviewing implementation against the spec and for code quality.
This runs between tasks. Not at the end — between each task, while changes are still small and fixable.
Critical findings block progress. No task starts after a Critical finding until it's resolved.
Severity Levels
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Spec violation, security issue, data loss risk, test circumvented | BLOCK. Stop all execution. Must be fixed before next task. |
| High | Logic error, wrong behavior, missing error handling | Must be resolved before wave ends |
| Medium | Code quality issue, missed edge case, unclear abstraction | Should be resolved; note in review-log |
| Low | Style, naming, minor improvement | Note in review-log; optional to fix |
Two-Pass Review
Pass 1: Spec Compliance
Read superspec/specs/<slug>/spec.md. For every requirement in scope of the completed task:
## Pass 1: Spec Compliance
### ✅ Requirement: <Name>
Scenario: <Name>
Coverage: `<test-file>:<line>` — `<test name>`
Verified: behavior matches spec ✅
### ⚠️ Requirement: <Name>
Scenario: <Name>
Coverage: MISSING
Severity: Critical
Issue: This scenario has no test. The behavior is not verified.
### ❌ Requirement: <Name>
Scenario: <Name>
Coverage: `<test-file>:<line>`
Verified: FAILS — the implementation does X but spec says Y
Severity: Critical
If any Critical findings in Pass 1: stop immediately. Report. Do not run Pass 2.
Pass 2: Code Quality
Only run if Pass 1 is fully ✅ (or only Medium/Low findings).
Review dimensions:
Logic correctness
- Are there cases where the code does the wrong thing?
- Are error paths handled?
- Are assumptions safe?
Test quality
- Do tests test behavior (not implementation)?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Are tests readable as documentation?
Structure
- DRY: is there duplication that should be extracted?
- YAGNI: is there code that serves no current requirement?
- Clarity: can this be read and understood without mental overhead?
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 · 162 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e3378aaf1f86
execute-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fokkerone/superspecs (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 985 tokens. 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…