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 mhawthorne/gza --skill gza-spec-review-allgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhawthorne/gzaWrote 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/mhawthorne/gza/gza-spec-review-all)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhawthorne/gza/gza-spec-review-all"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhawthorne/gza/gza-spec-review-all/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/mhawthorne/gza/gza-spec-review-all"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhawthorne/gza/gza-spec-review-all.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 | $0.00024 | $0.01318 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00659 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00264 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
gza-spec-review-all 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 — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Review Skill
Review feature specs in specs/features/ for accuracy against the current
implementation. Behavior specs in specs/behavior/ are out of scope here — those are
prescriptive requirements checked in the opposite direction by gza-behavior-check, not
descriptive specs to flag as outdated.
When to Use
- User asks to review specs
- User asks "are the specs accurate?" or "which specs are outdated?"
- Before a release to ensure specs reflect current state
- After a major refactor to find specs that reference old code
Important: Aspirational vs Outdated
Specs can be forward-looking (describing planned features) or outdated (describing old behavior). Use this heuristic:
- Aspirational (skip): Describes functionality that doesn't exist in code but sounds intentional/planned. Leave these alone.
- Outdated (flag): Describes functionality that used to work differently, or references old file paths, old command names, or deprecated patterns.
When in doubt, flag it with a note that it "may be aspirational."
Process
Step 1: Discover specs
ls specs/features/
Step 2: For each spec, verify against implementation
Read the spec file, then search the codebase to verify its claims.
Check for concrete, verifiable claims:
-
File paths — Does the spec reference files that exist?
- Search with Glob for referenced paths
- Flag paths that don't exist and aren't plausible future additions
-
Command/option names — Does the spec describe CLI commands or flags?
- Compare against
uv run gza --helpanduv run gza <command> --help - Flag commands that were renamed or flags that changed
- Compare against
-
Config fields — Does the spec reference configuration options?
- Search
src/gza/config.pyfor referenced field names - Flag fields that were renamed or removed
- Search
-
Code patterns — Does the spec describe specific functions, classes, or modules?
- Search with Grep for referenced identifiers
- Flag identifiers that no longer exist
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 · 150 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A ad2a3b8bc13f
gza-spec-review-all is a skill published in the GitHub repository mhawthorne/gza (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,318 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
criticism-self-criticism
A structured review method for examining completed work, criticism, and repeated mistakes. It focuses on specific evidence, causes, effects, and practical improvements.
planning
ONLY for coordinated multi-artifact work: multiple workflows with dependencies, shared data-table schema/migration across tasks, or the user explicitly asked to review a plan first. Load create-tasks via loadtool before calling it (search "create tasks" if not visible). Do NOT use for new one-off workflows…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.