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 hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills --skill spec-conformancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skillsWrote 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/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/spec-conformance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/spec-conformance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/spec-conformance/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/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/spec-conformance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/spec-conformance.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 | $0.00122 | $0.01375 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00049 | $0.00550 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00275 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
spec-conformance 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec conformance
Adapted from repoprompt-workflows (Balarama Bosch), MIT.
Intent
Prove the implementation conforms to the spec, section by section. Green tests are not proof: they assert code contracts (an element exists, an endpoint returns 200), not that behavior matches the spec's requirements. This skill is the audit that closes that gap.
It is the report-only half of the kit's independent verification. The matrix it produces is an input, not a verdict: verifier-agent composes this lens for the contract half of its own pass / fail / blocked decision, and fix-batch runs that verification against every worktree before anything is reconciled. Use this lens directly when the spec-versus-code audit is all you want; go through verifier-agent when the question is whether the work is ready to land.
When to use
- Before closing a spec-driven issue or feature, where the matrix is the evidence that it is done.
- When asked "does the implementation match the spec?" or "what diverges from the spec?"
- To produce a conformance report for a spec, conventionally at
docs/spec/<spec>.conformance.md.
Inputs
- spec path (required): the spec document to audit.
- implementation scope (optional): defaults to the repo or working tree.
Workflow
- Enumerate every auditable item in the spec: each scenario (
S-NNN), each proposed surface element (tool, endpoint, parameter, field, or return shape), and each stated value, enum, or constraint. - Locate evidence for each item in the implementation: a code location (
file:symbol) or a test that asserts the requirement. - Classify each item: Conformed (evidence matches the requirement) | Diverged (evidence conflicts, state both the spec side and the code side) | Not-built (no evidence found).
- Coverage proof: emit the
auditedset (every item checked) and theunreconciledset (Diverged + Not-built). Each unreconciled item is either to-fix or accepted-with-reason; nothing is silently dropped.
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 Changed · +5 lines f8c7296a64fc
- 2mo ago First seen · 69 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A 9dc2b86aee95
spec-conformance is a skill published in the GitHub repository hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 1,375 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Use when explicitly invoked to review a branch diff (or any diff or files pointed at) with a find-only subagent covering rubric and conventions, change conformance against the AC-N and their runtime-verification evidence, and documentation consistency — one plain-text verdict that reaches lgtm only when no dimension…
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.
kiro-review
Review a task implementation against approved specs, task boundaries, and verification evidence. Use after an implementer finishes a task, after remediation, or before accepting a task as complete.
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
review
Review code changes for security, performance, bugs, and quality. Reviews staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or PR-ready diffs.
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…