Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Hundia/autospec. 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/Hundia/autospec/main/.opencode/skills/qa-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Hundia/autospecWrote 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/hundia/autospec/qa-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hundia/autospec/qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hundia/autospec/qa-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/hundia/autospec/qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hundia/autospec/qa-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00139 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00056 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00028 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00014 |
Grade A, and why
qa-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 2mo 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
Use this skill when the user wants a QA pass on a completed AutoSpec ticket or sprint.
- Read
skills/claude/qa-review.mdand treat it as the detailed workflow definition. - Apply change-appropriate QA rather than a one-size-fits-all checklist.
- Keep
CLAUDE.mdand repo-specific rules active while reviewing. - Update backlog state only after verification conclusions are clear.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 16 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 72d88be577d3
qa-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Hundia/autospec (4 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 139 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
team-qa
Orchestrate the QA team through a full testing cycle — qa-lead strategy and test plan, qa-tester case writing, execution, sign-off.
scaffold-dotnet-test-project
MUST USE when an existing .NET test project was excluded from a .slnf/CI solution filter, disappeared from .sln/.slnx discovery, or lost its production ProjectReference; also for requests to set up, create, reuse, add, register, include, or repair a test project. Handles "tests pass directly but CI discovers zero"…
test-result-feedback
Close the acceptance loop for a tested change — consume the apc test TierResult, map EACH acceptance criterion to a pass/fail outcome from structured fields (never chat text), attach an evidence ref, and write it back to the task. A SUT red is a finding, never softened to green.
conductor-implement
Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow.
cy-execute-task
Implement and verify an existing CompozyOS spec task, then update its tracking. Excludes review remediation.
implement-feature
Implement an approved feature plan with benefit-based placement, TDD, revision-bound evidence, and PR-ready output.