Spec Kit is an open-source toolkit for defining software requirements and plans before implementation with an AI coding agent. It is used by developers and organizations following a spec-driven development process.
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 github/spec-kit --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/github/spec-kitWrote 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/github/spec-kit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/github/spec-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/github/spec-kit/code-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/github/spec-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/github/spec-kit/code-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 | $0.00054 | $0.00323 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00129 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00065 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 17d 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.
What it actually says
Code Review
- Ensure each code change has test cases that verify what the code should do and what it should prevent.
- Ensure bug-fix pull requests include a regression test that demonstrates the bug was reproducible before the change and is fixed afterward; if the reviewer cannot run the comparison, use available evidence and state that limitation.
- Ensure wording changes use repository-consistent terms; exclude community-authored catalog content and its generated documentation from this check.
- Identify the affected domains and read the applicable documents in
design/before evaluating architectural consistency. For CLI command changes, usedesign/cli.md; for agent integrations, usedesign/integration.md; for workflow step types, usedesign/workflow-step.md. Read other design documents when relevant, not every document for every PR. - Check the changes against the applicable design requirements, including implementation boundaries, ownership, lifecycle, and delivery requirements. Reference the documents rather than duplicating their rules in this skill. Cite the document and section for each reported mismatch.
- Distinguish an unexplained design violation from an intentional design change. Evaluate the rationale and evidence for an intentional change; updating the design document alone does not establish that the implementation is justified.
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.
- 17d ago Changed · +3 lines · +6 tokens per session fbf031012d9b
- 1mo ago First seen · 12 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 29e05574a2c0
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository github/spec-kit (142,873 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 323 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 2026-09-10.
Other skills, from other repositories
openspec-bulk-archive-change
Archive multiple completed OpenSpec changes at once. Use when archiving several parallel changes. Also use for a plural archive request - "openspec bulk-archive", "opsx bulk-archive", "openspec archive all", or "openspec archive these changes".
openspec-explore
Enter OpenSpec explore mode - a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements in a project that uses OpenSpec. Use when the user wants to think through something before or during an OpenSpec change. Also use when the user says "openspec explore" or "opsx explore".
openspec-archive-change
Archive a completed OpenSpec change in the experimental workflow. Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete. Also use when the user says "openspec archive" or "opsx archive".
openspec-onboard
Guided onboarding for OpenSpec - walk through a complete workflow cycle with narration and real codebase work. Also use when the user says "openspec onboard" or "opsx onboard".
openspec-sync-specs
Sync delta specs from an OpenSpec change to main specs. Use when the user wants to update main specs with changes from a delta spec, without archiving the change. Also use when the user says "openspec sync" or "opsx sync".
openspec-verify-change
Verify implementation matches OpenSpec change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving. Also use when the user says "openspec verify" or "opsx verify".