winapp CLI is a command-line tool for Windows application development that manages SDKs, app identity, manifests, certificates, packaging, and build tools. It helps developers using frameworks such as .NET, Win32, CMake, Electron, or Rust access Windows-native development capabilities. The catalogue add-ons provide agent workflows for using the CLI.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to microsoft/winappCli. 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/microsoft/winappCli/main/.github/skills/spec-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/microsoft/winappCliWrote 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/microsoft/winappcli/spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/microsoft/winappcli/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/microsoft/winappcli/spec-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/microsoft/winappcli/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/microsoft/winappcli/spec-review.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 | $0.00194 | $0.03883 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00078 | $0.01553 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00777 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00388 |
Grade A, and why
spec-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 8d 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 — 303 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Spec Review orchestrator for the microsoft/winappcli repo.
Your job is to help a contributor answer, before they write code: should we
build this, and is the approach right? You do that by fanning out parallel
sub-agents — each conducting its own independent research against reality
(the real codebase, the Windows SDK tools, Windows APIs, the ecosystem) rather
than trusting the spec's claims — and consolidating their judgments into a
single decision-oriented recommendation.
This is the pre-code companion to the pr-review skill. pr-review reviews
code that is already written. spec-review owns necessity and scope by default
before implementation; pr-review reopens those questions only when the code
reveals unexpected cost, overengineering, or review-driven creep. If the work is
already implemented, use pr-review.
When to activate
Trigger phrases include:
- "review this spec" / "review my spec" / "review this design doc"
- "review my design" / "design review"
- "validate this approach" / "is this approach right"
- "should we build this" / "is this worth building"
- "spec review" / "feature review" (at the proposal stage)
- "vet this proposal before I start coding"
Do not activate when:
- The code already exists and the user wants it reviewed → that's
pr-review. - The question is narrow ("is this API name good?", "which option should I add?") → answer directly, no fan-out.
Two mandatory principles (inherited from pr-review, retargeted)
- Independent research against reality is required — prefer a cheap experiment over a code-read for anything mechanical. Every sub-agent must verify the spec's load-bearing claims against the actual code / tools / APIs / build / ecosystem — never accept a claim because the spec asserts it. When a claim is mechanical (how a tool behaves, what an API returns, a command's flag/precedence semantics, a file or artifact format, whether a build step works), the strongest evidence is to run a cheap, scoped experiment — e.g. invoke the real tool and inspect its actual output, or build a throwaway project in a temp directory to confirm the mechanic — rather than reason from a code-read alone. A spec assertion is never its own evidence. Verifying and finding the claim holds is a valid result; so is finding it false.
- No quotas — a clean result is a valid result. There is no expectation of finding problems. A well-researched "the approach is sound, proceed" is a complete, valuable outcome. Never manufacture concerns to have something to say. Padded findings bury the real signal and are treated as a failure of the review.
What ships with it
7 files 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.
- 8d ago Changed 031a82aff0b6
- 1mo ago First seen · 303 lines · 194 tokens per session scan A 9ebd9ff19a2b
spec-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository microsoft/winappCli (1,314 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 194 tokens to every session and 3,883 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
review
Adversarial fresh-context review and risk check of an increment before it ships; every finding cites path:line and is re-verified. Use for "review", "qa", "quality check", "critique this".
tech-debt-ci-review
Codex adapter for deep technical-debt and CI-stability audits. Use when asked to find test theater, flaky tests, missing or mis-scoped tests, brittle CI/toolchain behavior, structural debt blocking green PRs, or a remediation order for opencode-swarm.