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 opsmill/infrahub-mcp --skill speckit-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opsmill/infrahub-mcpWrote 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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-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 | $0.00031 | $0.01460 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00730 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00292 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
92% identical to speckit-review-run — 16 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comprehensive PR Review
Run a comprehensive pull request review using multiple specialized agents, each focusing on a different aspect of code quality.
Review Aspects (optional): "$ARGUMENTS"
Review Workflow:
-
Load Configuration
- Read the project config file at
.specify/extensions/review/review-config.yml(if it exists). - If the file does not exist, fall back to the
defaults.agentssection in the extension'sextension.yml. - Extract the
agentsmap — each key (code,comments,tests,errors,types,simplify) is a boolean toggle. - Agents set to
falseMUST be excluded from this run. Do not launch them.
- Read the project config file at
-
Determine Review Scope
- Parse arguments to see if user requested specific review aspects.
- If specific aspects were requested, run exactly those — config toggles do not apply (explicit user request overrides config).
- Default (no arguments): Run all applicable reviews that are enabled in config.
-
Available Review Aspects:
- comments - Analyze code comment accuracy and maintainability
- tests - Review test coverage quality and completeness
- errors - Check error handling for silent failures
- types - Analyze type design and invariants (if new types added)
- code - General code review for project guidelines
- simplify - Simplify code for clarity and maintainability
- all - Run all applicable reviews (default)
-
Identify Changed Files
- If the user provided a file list or explicit instructions on how to retrieve files (e.g., only staged, only unstaged, a specific folder, etc.), follow those instructions directly.
- Otherwise, fall back to the default: execute the
.specify/scripts/bash/detect-changed-files.shwith--jsonto detect changed files.- The script automatically picks the best detection mode:
- Mode A (feature branch): diffs the current branch against the default branch (
main/master) from the merge-base, plus any staged and unstaged changes. - Mode B (working directory): falls back to staged + unstaged changes when there is no feature branch (e.g., working directly on the default branch).
- Mode A (feature branch): diffs the current branch against the default branch (
- JSON output:
{"branch", "default_branch", "mode", "changed_files": [...]}
- The script automatically picks the best detection mode:
- Note: The folder containing the script may be excluded from version control or hidden by search indexing.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 177 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 9d90f5cebd8c
speckit-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository opsmill/infrahub-mcp (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,460 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to speckit-review-run, differing in 16 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
bootstrap-repo-analysis
First-time analysis of a repository with no prior reviewer outcomes. Crawl historical merged-PR review feedback with the gh CLI (plus any preloaded samples), extract the team's review norms, and synthesize the initial per-repo review-style prompt. Use this for a cold-start repo; use continual-learning instead once the…
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
github
GitHub operations via gh CLI: issues, PRs, CI runs, code review, API queries. Use when: (1) checking PR status or CI, (2) creating/commenting on issues, (3) listing/filtering PRs or issues, (4) viewing run logs. NOT for: complex web UI interactions requiring manual browser flows (use browser tooling when available)…
tensorpool-gpu-cloud
Safely inspect and operate TensorPool GPU clusters and jobs using the current tp CLI, with explicit approval before any billable or destructive action.
lambda-gpu-cloud
Safely inspect and operate Lambda Cloud GPU instances through the documented Cloud API and SSH, with explicit approval before billable or destructive actions.