Spec Kitty is an open-source command-line tool that turns product requirements into a repository-based workflow for AI-assisted software development. It stores specifications, plans, tasks, acceptance criteria, reviews, and merge decisions in Git while giving agents isolated git worktrees for parallel implementation. The catalogue add-ons support the project's workflows for coordinating agents and governing their work.
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 Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty --skill spec-kitty-mission-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Priivacy-ai/spec-kittyWrote 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/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/spec-kitty-mission-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/spec-kitty-mission-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/spec-kitty-mission-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/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/spec-kitty-mission-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/spec-kitty-mission-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Privilege Escalation · line 503 Code accesses credential files (SSH keys, AWS credentials, etc.). This could indicate credential theft attempts.Fix: Remove references to credential paths. Use environment variables or secrets managers. For docs, use placeholder paths (e.g., /path/to/config). Never load .env or token files in production code paths.
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 | $0.00155 | $0.08756 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00062 | $0.03502 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.01751 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00876 |
Grade A, and why
spec-kitty-mission-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 1mo 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
git diff <baseline_merge_commit>..HEAD -- src/ | grep -n "httpx\|requests\|urllib\|socket" How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 878 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
spec-kitty-mission-review
You are the expert senior reviewer for a completed Spec Kitty mission. The mission has been fully implemented, all WPs have been approved, and the feature branch has been merged. Your job is to answer a single question with documented evidence: does the merged code accurately and completely realize the spec, and are there risks the implementation team did not surface?
This is not a checklist exercise. It is structured adversarial analysis. You read the spec as the author's promise and the code as the executor's delivery, and you measure the gap. Every finding you produce must be traceable to an artifact (a spec section, a git diff line, a test file, a contract clause). You do not fix anything. You document.
When to Use This Skill
- After
spec-kitty merge --mission <slug>completes and all WPs showdone - Before tagging a release that depends on this mission's changes
- When a downstream team needs a sign-off on spec→code fidelity
- When you suspect a WP review was too narrow and cross-WP holes exist
This is not the pre-merge acceptance gate. Run spec-kitty accept --mission <slug> before merge; use this skill after merge for final spec-to-code review.
After this mission review, remind the operator to follow the canonical post-merge sequence
while the work is still fresh: author or verify the retrospective (retrospect create
if the record is absent, or verify the existing .kittify/missions/<mission_id>/retrospective.yaml);
surface findings (spec-kitty retrospect summary for cross-mission aggregation;
spec-kitty agent retrospect synthesize --mission <slug> to inspect proposals, dry-run by default).
Step 1: Orient — Load Mission Identity and Status
Before reading a single line of code, anchor yourself to what the mission promised and where it stands.
# Confirm the mission is fully merged (all WPs must be done)
spec-kitty agent tasks status --mission <slug>
If any WP is not in done, this is not a post-merge mission review — use
spec-kitty-runtime-review instead.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 292236a35344
- 1mo ago First seen · 874 lines · 155 tokens per session scan A 53c4d2d24869
spec-kitty-mission-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty (1,687 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 155 tokens to every session and 8,756 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
clarity-over-cleverness
Apply clarity-over-cleverness rewrites — prefer code a junior engineer can read at a glance over compact-but-clever code. Use during /build's simplify step and during /code-simplify (alias "simplify the code"). Never weakens behavior; suite must remain green.
spring-code-review-rubric
Pre-commit code review rubric for Spring Boot 4 changes. Used by spring-code-reviewer to produce 08-code-review.md before any commit. Covers traceability, architecture, Spring idioms, error handling, data access, security, test quality, clarity, and migration.
6_gofer_validate
Validate implementation with 10-category engineering rubric (100 points).
code-review-and-quality
Use when reviewing Android code (own or others'). Five-axis review framework: Correctness, Readability, Architecture, Security, Performance. Categorized findings with Kotlin/Compose-specific checks.
code-simplification
Use when code is harder to understand than it needs to be. Guides incremental simplification that preserves behavior exactly, following project conventions and Kotlin idioms.
doubt-driven-development
Use when a decision is high-stakes and hard to reverse — architecture choices, data migrations, dependency adoption, public API contracts. Adversarial self-review that attacks the chosen approach before the code does, instead of defending the first idea that worked.