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 sd0xdev/sd0x-harness --skill review-specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sd0xdev/sd0x-harnessWrote 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/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/review-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/review-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sd0xdev/sd0x-harness/review-spec.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 | $0.00019 | $0.02013 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01007 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00403 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00201 |
Grade A, and why
review-spec 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 — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Spec
Trigger
- Keywords: review spec, spec review, tech spec review, review-spec
When NOT to Use
- Code review (use
/codex-review-fast) - General document review (use
/codex-review-doc) - Writing a new spec (use
/tech-spec)
Relationship to /codex-review-doc
Both are doc-plane producers of the same gate, dispatched over the same
Codex exec transport (@skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md) and emitting the same sentinel pair. They differ only in review
depth and dimensions: /review-spec is the design-landing depth (completeness, feasibility,
risk, code consistency, test strategy), /codex-review-doc is the general document depth.
Loop mechanics, severity calibration and [NIT_DEFERRED] handling are shared — see
@skills/doc-review/SKILL.md.
Why not an Agent dispatch. The gate verdict is behaviour-layer: it comes from the reviewer's
report, and review-state.js note records it (@rules/auto-loop.md § Enforcement — nothing parses
reviewer output; hooks are reminders). What makes a verdict usable is that a contract-aware
reviewer produced it against this family's template and sentinels. A built-in agent dispatched
ad hoc is not that reviewer and its output closes nothing. Dispatching Codex over the shared
transport is what makes the verdict this skill's to note. See @rules/auto-loop.md § Review Dispatch.
Codex Dispatch
Bind every placeholder before writing prompt.md. The body below is body-only, so nothing
evaluates an expression inside it: ${FILE_PATH} and ${PROJECT_ROOT} must carry real values by the
time the file is written, or the cat ${FILE_PATH} instructions reach Codex as literal text and
cannot be run.
You are a senior technical spec reviewer. Perform a Document Review of the technical specification below, at design-landing depth.
Document Info
- Path: ${FILE_PATH}
- Type: technical specification
- Project root: ${PROJECT_ROOT}
⚠️ Important: You must independently read and research the project ⚠️
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 Changed · +11 lines bfc1ec0647b9
- 3d ago First seen · 182 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 4c6752004262
review-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository sd0xdev/sd0x-harness (188 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 2,013 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Two-mode skill: (1) adversarial review — spec compliance + code quality + security, confidence-scored findings with file:line evidence; (2) receiving review — verify-before- agreeing discipline for acting on external/human review feedback.
codebase-hygiene
Two-mode skill: (1) find semantic duplicates — functions doing the same thing under different names, invisible to copy-paste detectors; (2) deepen shallow modules — thin wrappers and pass-through layers that spread complexity. Advisory and read-only; changes route through BUILD with full gates.
evaluator-review-contract
Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for sprint contract review before implementation. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during review mode.
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.
comet-review
A read-only review guide for checking the current Comet change, a managed software-change workflow. It focuses on correctness, security, and boundary problems without changing files or advancing the workflow.
comet-github-pr-review
A read-only review process for pull requests in Comet's GitHub repositories. A pull request is a proposed code change; the review checks its current code, related issue, comments, merge status, and automated checks.