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.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 5.1 | $0.00049 | $0.00985 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00492 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $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 8d 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 162 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e3378aaf1f86
execute-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fokkerone/superspecs (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 985 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…