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-verify-completiongit 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-verify-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-verify-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-verify-completion/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-verify-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gotalab/cc-sdd/kiro-verify-completion.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00039 | $0.00851 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00340 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
kiro-verify-completion 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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- kiro-verify-completion — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- kiro-verify-completion — 91% identical, 8 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
kiro-verify-completion
<background_information> This skill prevents false completion claims. A task, fix, or feature is only complete when supported by fresh evidence that matches the scope of the claim. </background_information>
- Before saying a task is complete
- Before saying a bug is fixed
- Before saying tests pass
- Before moving to the next task in autonomous execution
- Before reporting
GOfrom feature-level validation - Before trusting another subagent's success report
Do not use this skill for early planning or speculative status updates.
Inputs
Provide:
- The exact claim to verify
- Claim type:
TASKFIXTEST_OR_BUILDFEATURE_GO
- Validation commands discovered by the controller
- Fresh command output and exit codes
- Relevant task IDs, requirement IDs, and design refs where applicable
- For feature-level claims:
- requirements coverage status
- design alignment status
- integration status
- blocked task status
Outputs
Return one of:
VERIFIEDNOT_VERIFIEDMANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED
Also return:
- Claim reviewed
- Evidence used
- Scope/evidence mismatch, if any
Use the language specified in spec.json.
Gate Function
- Identify the exact claim.
- Identify the exact command or checklist that proves that claim.
- Require fresh evidence from the current code state.
- Check exit code, failure count, skipped scope, and missing coverage.
- Reject claims that are broader than the evidence.
- If mandatory validation cannot be completed, return
MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED. - Only then allow the claim.
Claim-Specific Rules
TASK
Require:
- task-local verification evidence
- no unresolved blocking findings from review
- evidence aligned with the task boundary
FIX
Require:
- evidence that the original symptom is resolved
- no broader regressions in the relevant verification scope
TEST_OR_BUILD
Require:
- actual command output
- exit code
- no inference from unrelated checks
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 132 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 389b056b47c9
kiro-verify-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository gotalab/cc-sdd (3,738 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 851 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
repo-consistency-sweep
Defect-class detection for the lower-value half of code review: convention drift, type-safety gaps, security and multi-tenant invariants, operability issues. Runs after review-hard. Checks against a curated bug-class library that grows via pr-feedback-ingest. Use when at least one slice is implemented and you want a…
app-runtime-verify
Verify a mobile or app runtime: run the app (device, emulator, or headless), read captured output (logcat, iOS device log, or Metro/JS console), classify errors per stack, and decide a PASS/FAIL gate. Adapters: React Native/Expo, Unity mobile. Do not use to plan a screen (use implementation-plan), to write or fix code…
incident-triage
Triage a concrete technical failure (stack trace, failing test, runtime symptom, production alert), classify it and pick a fix size (HOTFIX/SLICE/INVESTIGATION/ESCALATE). Use when there is concrete failure evidence, an active task folder exists, and urgency is real or unclear, or hotfix versus full flow is unclear. Do…
im-stuck
Break the task out of a loop, confusion state, or false progress and find the fastest safe path forward, routing to a recovery command and editor mode. Use when progress loops or stalls, questions repeat, the wrong command or mode may be in use, or the user is unsure if it is technical, workflow, or scope. Do not use…
code-locate
Locate code paths and line ranges for a described behavior: up to 10 candidates with HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence and a search trail, plus a proposed SOURCEOFTRUTH.md update. Use when the first question is where one specific behavior lives and paths are unknown. Do not use when paths are explicit, the codebase is tiny…
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.