cc-sdd is a spec-driven development workflow for coding agents: it turns approved software specifications into requirements, designs, task plans, and extended autonomous implementation. Developers use it across several AI coding agents, with independent review and task-level continuation for long-running work. The catalogue entries provide commands, skills, agents, and instructions for using this workflow.
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 gotalab/cc-sdd --skill kiro-validate-designgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gotalab/cc-sddWrote 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/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-design/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/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-validate-design.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 96 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00013 | $0.01075 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00537 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00215 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
kiro-validate-design 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 9d 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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- kiro-validate-design — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- kiro-validate-design — 88% identical, 69 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Technical Design Validation
<background_information>
- Mission: Conduct interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation
- Success Criteria:
- Critical issues identified (maximum 3 most important concerns)
- Balanced assessment with strengths recognized
- Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale
- Actionable feedback for improvements if needed </background_information>
Execution Steps
- Gather Context:
- Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/spec.jsonfor language and metadata - Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/requirements.mdfor requirements - Read
{{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/design.mdfor design document - Core steering context:
product.md,tech.md,structure.md - Additional steering files only when directly relevant to architecture boundaries, integrations, runtime prerequisites, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect implementation readiness
- Relevant local agent skills or playbooks only when they clearly match the feature's host environment or use case and provide review-relevant context
- Read
Parallel Research
The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel:
- Context & rules loading: Spec documents, core steering, task-relevant extra steering, relevant local agent skills/playbooks, and
rules/design-review.mdfrom this skill's directory for review criteria - Codebase pattern survey: Gather existing architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structure from the codebase to use as reference during review
If multi-agent is enabled, spawn sub-agents for each area above. Otherwise execute sequentially.
After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings for review.
- Execute Design Review:
- Reference conversation history when available: leverage prior requirements discussion and user's stated design intent
- Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO
- Limit to 3 most important concerns
- Engage interactively with user — ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives
- Use language specified in spec.json for output
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 104 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A cafff16570c0
kiro-validate-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository gotalab/cc-sdd (3,655 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,075 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
pr-feedback-ingest
Turn PR feedback (Greptile, CI, bots, humans) into a structured traceable backlog aligned with TASKSTATE.md, DECISIONS.md, and IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN.md so the next execution step can be a narrow implement-approved-slice or a small planning touch without losing alignment. Corrective scope only. Use when a PR is open or…
repo-consistency-sweep
Proactive defect-class detection that handles the lower-value half of code review (per Bacchelli and Bird 2013) so human reviewers stay focused on design, intent, and knowledge transfer. Catches convention drift, ordering bugs, type-safety gaps, security and multi-tenant invariants (CWE-grounded), and operability…
review-hard
Review the current task changes for real correctness, safety, and maintainability risks before slice closure or PR prep, and recommend the smallest safe next step. Surfaces meaningful issues (not cosmetic feedback); not a replacement for external review systems. Returns no-op when the review would not materially…
atom-audit-fleet
Orchestrator-workers variant of atom-audit. Dispatches N Haiku workers (3-5 atoms each) to audit every atom under packages/design-system/src/atoms/ in parallel against COMPONENTGUIDELINES.md rules; merges per-worker rows into ATOMAUDIT.md table. Use when atom count >= 6 (per cost-effectiveness threshold) AND…
verify-against-rubric-fleet
Orchestrator-workers generalization of verify-against-rubric to N=many artifacts against ONE locked rubric. Dispatches N stateless Sonnet sub-agents in parallel; each receives ONE artifact + the SAME rubric + read-only tools (no TASKSTATE, no DECISIONS, no prior history); returns structured per-criterion verdict.…
graphql-contract-review
Review a GraphQL schema and a Backend-for-Frontend (BFF) contract BEFORE implementation, against a GraphQL-specific checklist: schema shape and nullability (null-bubbling), errors-as-data unions, N+1 and DataLoader, query cost and depth limits, cursor-connection pagination, federation entity ownership, breaking-change…