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 liza-mas/liza --skill detailed-spec-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/liza-mas/lizaWrote 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/liza-mas/liza/detailed-spec-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/liza-mas/liza/detailed-spec-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/liza-mas/liza/detailed-spec-writing/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/liza-mas/liza/detailed-spec-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/liza-mas/liza/detailed-spec-writing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to low
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 →
- low Excessive Agency · line 71 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00050 | $0.01126 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00563 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00225 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
detailed-spec-writing 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 12d 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Objective
Transform fuzzy requirements into precise, SMARC specifications an Orchestrator can decompose into coding tasks.
Output: a git-tracked markdown document. One spec per task; one cohesive capability per spec.
Trigger
- The user explicitly invokes
/detailed-spec-writingor namesdetailed-spec-writing. - An assigned task explicitly lists
detailed-spec-writingamong its required skills. - Never infer activation from the requested artifact type or generic specification-writing language.
Inputs
Your task provides:
- An output file path
- References to source material (vision doc, prior specs, existing code)
Scope discipline:
- Upfront: Read task references + scan existing specs in same domain for consistency.
- Reviewer-driven: Broader material only when Spec Reviewer feedback identifies gaps.
- Declare what you read and why in References.
Output Format
PRD format template at the task-specified path.
Protocol
1. Parse
Read source material. Distinguish what is said, implied, and missing before writing any requirements.
Multiple independent capabilities → flag to Orchestrator for split. Do not silently produce a mega-spec.
2. Write
SMARC every functional requirement — Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Context-bound (implementable within a single agent's context budget — if it forces loading many files or deep cross-component knowledge, decompose further).
Cannot make it SMARC → Open Question, never a vague requirement.
References: Each feature traces to source material. No traceability = Scope Absorption.
Dependencies: True ordering constraints only. FT-X depends on FT-Y only if FT-X cannot be implemented or tested without FT-Y.
Assumptions are first-class outputs. Surfaced ambiguity is more valuable than papered-over gaps. Assumptions resolve behavioral ambiguity only — if an assumption names a file format, storage engine, library, or protocol, you've crossed into design territory. State the behavioral need and move on.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 113 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A e63d0da85e33
detailed-spec-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository liza-mas/liza (387 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,126 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…