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 racecraft-lab/Paddock --skill speckit-review-errorsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/racecraft-lab/PaddockWrote 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/racecraft-lab/paddock/speckit-review-errors)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/racecraft-lab/paddock/speckit-review-errors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/racecraft-lab/paddock/speckit-review-errors/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/racecraft-lab/paddock/speckit-review-errors"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/racecraft-lab/paddock/speckit-review-errors.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01615 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00646 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00161 |
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 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.
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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- speckit-review-errors — 94% identical, 4 lines differ
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, you MUST execute the .specify/extensions/review/scripts/bash/detect-changed-files.sh with --json to detect changed files. Do not attempt to detect changes by running git commands directly, reading git state manually, or using any other method — always delegate to the script. 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. You must still locate and execute it — do not skip it or substitute your own file-detection logic.
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
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 First seen · 146 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A eab99960d7a1
speckit-review-errors is a skill published in the GitHub repository racecraft-lab/Paddock (12 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,615 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
mission-control
Interact with Mission Control — AI agent orchestration dashboard. Use when registering agents, managing tasks, syncing skills, or querying agent/task status via MC APIs.
code-reviewer
A code-reviewing role that checks code for bugs, security weaknesses, readability problems, design issues, and performance concerns.
Systematic debugging
Use when you hit a bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior — find the root cause before changing code.
dpf-blast-radius
Use before shipping a DPF change to find what it breaks elsewhere — a refactor, renamed field, contract/schema/enum edit, shared helper, or a diff you do not trust.
adversarial-review
A multi-role code-review process that searches for problems, tries to disprove the proposed changes, and reproduces issues in a sandbox. Different agents or backends can take part in the review.
defect-hunting
Use when reviewing code, auditing an app, writing a guard rule or test, or certifying any threshold/constant/formula. Finds the defects a diff review structurally cannot see — the second write path, the mis-calibrated constant, the rule that cannot fail. Triggers from code-reviewer, /app-audit, qa-engineer…