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 PetriLahdelma/project-spine --skill project-spine-rationalegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PetriLahdelma/project-spineWrote 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/petrilahdelma/project-spine/project-spine-rationale)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/petrilahdelma/project-spine/project-spine-rationale"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrilahdelma/project-spine/project-spine-rationale/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/petrilahdelma/project-spine/project-spine-rationale"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrilahdelma/project-spine/project-spine-rationale.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 | $0.00057 | $0.00559 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00280 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
project-spine-rationale 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 11d 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 — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Local rationale review
Goal: help the user review .project-spine/exports/rationale.md before they share it through their normal channel. The public OSS CLI generates the file locally; it does not publish hosted rationale URLs.
Prerequisites
- Project compiled —
.project-spine/exports/rationale.mdexists. If not, switch to project-spine-kickoff. - Generated outputs are current — run
spine drift checkfirst if the user mentions stale instructions or changed inputs.
Step 1 — inspect the rationale
sed -n '1,220p' .project-spine/exports/rationale.md
Review the headings and content with the user. Do not paste the whole file into a public channel unless they explicitly ask.
Step 2 — check client-safety
Before the user shares the rationale, call out these sections:
- Risks — may contain internal language that should be softened.
- Constraints — may mention vendor costs, private process, or trade secrets.
- Warnings — may reveal missing brief details or repo uncertainty.
- Assumptions — should be phrased as assumptions, not promises.
If anything needs changing, edit the upstream brief.md or design inputs and rerun spine compile. Do not hand-edit rationale.md unless the user accepts that drift will be reported later.
Step 3 — prepare a shareable note
If the file is safe, summarize it into a short client note:
Here is the Project Spine rationale generated from the current brief and repo.
It captures goals, audience, constraints, assumptions, risks, stack summary,
and the first scaffold direction. The generated files are local and versionable;
future drift is checked with `spine drift check`.
Hosted publishing status
Do not tell users to run spine publish rationale, spine rationale list, or spine rationale revoke in the public OSS CLI. Those hosted commands exist in dormant source files but are intentionally not routed from spine --help.
What NOT to do
- Do not publish or share rationale content that includes credentials, internal URLs, PII, or trade secrets.
- Do not manually edit generated rationale files as the canonical fix. Edit inputs and recompile.
- Do not claim there is a hosted branded URL flow in the public CLI.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 54 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 73614b019c1f
project-spine-rationale is a skill published in the GitHub repository PetriLahdelma/project-spine (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 559 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
agentic-code-review
Use when reviewing a diff, pull request, branch, or AI-generated code for correctness, security, regression, test, performance, and maintainability risks before merge.
hooksmith
Use when designing or reviewing safe Grok Build hooks for linting, tests, formatting, notifications, command guards, lifecycle automation, or project hook trust decisions.
repo-health-check
Use when auditing a repo before changes to find the smallest safe PR, quality risks, stale docs, missing tests, ignored-file gaps, or agent setup issues. Best first skill for unfamiliar codebases.
architecture-review
Use for clean architecture, modular monoliths, hexagonal boundaries, service boundaries, data flow, dependency direction, ADRs, or large feature planning.
frontend-ux-engineer
Use for frontend features, Next.js/React/Vue/Svelte UI, accessibility, responsive layout, design polish, state handling, forms, visual QA, or product workflow improvements.
git-github-flow
Use for branch prep, clean commits, PR descriptions, GitHub issue triage, changelogs, release notes, review response, merge readiness, or publishing a branch safely.