cavekit is a Claude Code plugin that organizes software changes through a compact, spec-driven workflow stored in a SPEC.md file. It is for developers who want to plan, research, review, and build changes while preserving project context across sessions; the catalogue entries are its skills, commands, plugin configuration, and workflow rules.
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 agentmods add skills/juliusbrussee/cavekit/reviewnpx skills add JuliusBrussee/cavekit --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/cavekitWrote 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/juliusbrussee/cavekit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juliusbrussee/cavekit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juliusbrussee/cavekit/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00139 | $0.01032 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00069 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00206 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
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 5d 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 — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
review — refute the spec before build
Every finding cites evidence — file:line or a source. No evidence → flag [unverified]. Default to refuted: a flaw you cannot prove is a flaw you note, not one you wave through.
An LLM cannot self-correct on its own judgment — left alone it drifts or degrades. Review fixes that the only way that works: a separate skeptic anchored to an external oracle — the code, §R, the test suite, the docs. "Looks good" is not a review. A refutation attempt is.
WHEN TO REVIEW
- Before
/buildon a high-blast-radius change (shared module, auth, data, money, public API). - Spec touched §I or §V that other code depends on.
- Right-sizing says the cost of a wrong build > the cost of one review pass.
Skip for a trivial, reversible, well-understood change. Adversarial review on a typo hallucinates flaws & wastes the budget — the self-critique paradox is real.
PHASE 0 — CAPTURE
Read the spec: §G §C §I §R §V §T. Hold the whole thing. You review the spec, not your memory of the conversation.
PHASE 1 — CONSTRUCT THE SENIOR
Build a reviewer with real authority, not a generic critic:
- Codebase — grep/read the modules this spec touches. What patterns, what invariants already hold?
- §R — what did research establish? A spec decision that contradicts §R is a finding.
- Live — for any best-practice claim you are unsure of, fetch it. An out-of-date assumption is a flaw.
A reviewer with no evidence is just an opinion. Earn the authority first.
PHASE 2 — REFUTE
Attack the spec on these axes. For each, try to find the case where it breaks:
- Goal vs reality — does §G solve the actual problem, or a proxy?
- Missing invariant — what can go wrong that no §V catches? (most findings live here)
- Interface drift — does §I match what callers already expect? (cite the caller, file:line)
- Constraint conflict — do two §C bullets contradict? does one fight §R?
- Unowned edge — the input, ordering, failure, or concurrency case no §T covers.
- Altitude — §T too vague to act on, or so granular it is just typing?
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 86 lines · 139 tokens per session scan A 15dff7dab0a7
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository JuliusBrussee/cavekit (1,142 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 139 tokens to every session and 1,032 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
build-executor
Govern implementation from an approved execution contract. Invoke when execution-contract.md is approved and the user wants disciplined build work, TDD execution, or guarded batch-by-batch implementation.
workflow-start
Primary entry point for the spec-superflow state-machine workflow. Invoke when the user is inside an active spec-superflow change directory (look for .spec-superflow.yaml, changes/ /, proposal.md, specs/, design.md, tasks.md, or execution-contract.md) and asks to start, continue, resume, implement, plan, or figure out…
release-archivist
Close out a spec-superflow change with verification, summary, and archive readiness. Invoke when implementation is complete, verification is underway, or the user asks for a final wrap-up.
bug-investigator
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior during spec-superflow execution, before proposing fixes. Invoked automatically when build-executor hits a blockage.
contract-builder
Convert approved planning artifacts into an execution contract. Invoke when the user wants to start building, asks to move from planning to implementation, or when execution-contract.md is missing or stale.
spec-writer
Create or refine spec-superflow planning artifacts. Invoke when the change is understood well enough to write proposal.md, specs/, design.md, and tasks.md.