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 redhat-developer/rhdh-skills --skill openspec-verify-changegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/redhat-developer/rhdh-skillsWrote 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/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/openspec-verify-change)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/openspec-verify-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/openspec-verify-change.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 | $0.00093 | $0.00753 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00377 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
openspec-verify-change 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 7d 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify an OpenSpec implementation
Check that code actually satisfies a change's specs, tasks, and design — after implementation, before archiving — and report gaps with actionable, file-referenced recommendations.
Steps
- Select the change. If not given, run
openspec list --json, show changes with implementation tasks, mark ones with incomplete tasks "(In Progress)", and let the user choose. Never guess. - Check the schema:
openspec status --change "<name>" --json. - Load artifacts:
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --jsonreturnscontextFiles(artifact ID -> paths); read everything available. - Verify completeness. Tasks: parse
- [ ]/- [x]in everycontextFiles.tasksfile; each incomplete task is CRITICAL with a recommendation ("Complete task: " or "Mark done if already implemented"). Spec coverage: for each requirement in delta specs, search the codebase for implementation evidence; an apparently-unimplemented requirement is CRITICAL ("Requirement not found: "). - Verify correctness. For each requirement, search for implementation evidence and assess whether it matches intent; a divergence is WARNING with a file/line-referenced recommendation. For each scenario, check whether code and tests cover it; an uncovered scenario is WARNING.
- Verify coherence. If
design.mdexists, extract key decisions and check the implementation follows them; a contradiction is WARNING. Nodesign.mdmeans skipping this check and noting it. Check new code against project naming/structure/style conventions; a significant deviation is SUGGESTION. - Generate the report: a summary scorecard (Completeness /
Correctness / Coherence), issues grouped CRITICAL / WARNING / SUGGESTION
each with a specific recommendation and
file.ts:123-style references, and a final assessment — "X critical issue(s) found, fix before archiving" / "No critical issues, Y warning(s) to consider, ready for archive" / "All checks passed, ready for archive".
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 69 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A 286f111ee265
openspec-verify-change is a skill published in the GitHub repository redhat-developer/rhdh-skills (16 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 753 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.