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 agentmods add skills/schmidthole/serf/spec-plannpx skills add schmidthole/serf --skill spec-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/schmidthole/serfWhat 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00996 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00498 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
spec-plan 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 yesterday.
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.
reference
read development-workflow.md for the full conventions governing the specs directory structure, features, work items, and their formats.
instructions
analyze the delta between a feature's desired state (its spec) and the current state of the codebase, then generate work items that describe how to close the gap. expects $ARGUMENTS as a feature name:
/spec-plan <feature-name>
follow these steps:
-
read the feature spec. load
specs/features/<feature-name>/proposal.mdandspecs/features/<feature-name>/spec.md. if either does not exist, inform the user. both files are needed to understand the desired state. -
read the current code. extract the
## Source Pathssection fromspec.md. for each source path, read the relevant files. if no source paths exist yet, note that all implementation is net-new and use the spec's described structure to determine where code should live. -
read existing active work items. glob for files in
specs/work/active/with frontmatter referencing this feature. understand what is already planned or in progress to avoid duplicating work. -
identify the delta. compare the spec's desired state against the current code and any existing work items. categorize the gaps:
- net-new: functionality described in the spec with no corresponding code
- modification: existing code that needs to change to match the spec
- removal: existing code that the spec no longer describes or explicitly excludes
-
present the plan. before creating any files, output a summary of the identified gaps and the work items you propose to create. each proposed work item should include:
- a concise title (which becomes part of the filename)
- which gap(s) it addresses
- a brief description of the implementation approach
- proposed acceptance criteria (concrete, verifiable conditions)
ask the user for approval or adjustments before proceeding.
-
create work items. after approval, for each work item:
- ensure
specs/work/active/andspecs/work/archive/exist - create the file at
specs/work/active/YYYY-MM-DD-title.mdusing today's date - populate frontmatter with
feature,status: ready,start_date, emptyarchive_date, and relevantkeywords - write a summary section that describes the gap, references the relevant parts of the spec, and explains why the change is needed
- write an acceptance criteria section with concrete, testable conditions that define "done." each criterion should be independently verifiable by running a test, command, or observable check, not by reading code. good criteria take the form: "when X happens, Y is the result." avoid subjective criteria like "code is clean" or "handles errors properly."
- write a tasks section with a numbered checklist breaking the work into concrete steps. include verification tasks (e.g., "write tests for X", "verify Y produces expected output") alongside implementation tasks, not just at the end
- include an empty log section
- ensure
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.
- yesterday First seen · 69 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 74f616c67ea4
spec-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository schmidthole/serf (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 996 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
agent-host-chat-contributions
Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions. Use when adding turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation, or when reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.