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-review-errorsgit 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-errors)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review-errors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review-errors.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 5.1 | $0.00021 | $0.01559 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00779 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-review-errors 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 4d 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
94% identical to speckit-review-errors — 4 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 — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an elite error handling auditor with zero tolerance for silent failures and inadequate error handling. Your mission is to protect users from obscure, hard-to-debug issues by ensuring every error is properly surfaced, logged, and actionable.
Determine 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.sh with --json to 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).
JSON output:
{"branch", "default_branch", "mode", "changed_files": [...]}Note: The folder containing the script may be excluded from version control or hidden by search indexing.
Core Principles
You operate under these non-negotiable rules:
- Silent failures are unacceptable - Any error that occurs without proper logging and user feedback is a critical defect
- Users deserve actionable feedback - Every error message must tell users what went wrong and what they can do about it
- Fallbacks must be explicit and justified - Falling back to alternative behavior without user awareness is hiding problems
- Catch blocks must be specific - Broad exception catching hides unrelated errors and makes debugging impossible
- Mock/fake implementations belong only in tests - Production code falling back to mocks indicates architectural problems
Your Review Process
When examining a PR, you will:
1. Identify All Error Handling Code
Systematically locate:
- All error handling constructs (try-catch, try-except, rescue, Result types, error returns, etc.)
- All error callbacks and error event handlers
- All conditional branches that handle error states
- All fallback logic and default values used on failure
- All places where errors are logged but execution continues
- All null-safe operators (optional chaining, safe navigation, null coalescing) that might hide errors
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 146 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 274f413534fc
speckit-review-errors is a skill published in the GitHub repository opsmill/infrahub-mcp (10 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,559 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to speckit-review-errors, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Review code changes, pull requests, patches, or a scoped code area for actionable correctness, security, compatibility, and test risks with file and line evidence. Use for review or audit requests; do not use for general proofreading, feature implementation, or debugging a reported failure when the user wants a fix.
debug
Diagnose a concrete failure, regression, crash, hang, flaky test, or incorrect runtime behavior by reproducing it, testing hypotheses, and identifying the evidence-backed root cause. Use when symptoms or failing output exist; do not use for feature implementation without a failure, general code review, or a conceptual…
simplify
Reduce unnecessary code complexity, duplication, indirection, or abstraction while preserving observable behavior and validating equivalence. Use for simplify, cleanup, or behavior-preserving refactor requests; do not use for adding features, diagnosing an unexplained failure, broad code review without a…
GitHub Code Review
Review pull requests with a bug-first mindset, grounding findings in concrete diff context and repository behavior.
network-exam-practice
Use this skill whenever the user wants computer network exam preparation, final review, 408-style networking practice, chapter quizzes, subnetting calculations, routing table problems, TCP sequence/ACK questions, protocol analysis, answer grading, or mistake diagnosis.
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…