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/sudokar/openspec-plus/openspec-plus-proposalnpx skills add sudokar/openspec-plus --skill openspec-plus-proposalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sudokar/openspec-plusWhat 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 | $0.00082 | $0.02515 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.01257 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00503 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00251 |
Grade A, and why
openspec-plus-proposal 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 3d 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 — 219 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
OpenSpec Plus Proposal
Mission
Brainstorming-style interactive discovery for OpenSpec proposals. Produce a lean Why / What Changes / Capabilities / Impact proposal at intent level — never sliding into design, spec, or implementation.
OpenSpec provides the format and template (resolved dynamically in Phase 0). This skill provides the process discipline: five-lens Q&A, decomposition check, scope discipline, subagent review.
Inputs
- User request — authoritative for intent
- Existing proposals in
openspec/changes/— for terminology and convention only - NEVER read source code — proposal is intent, not implementation grounding
Workflow
Four phases. NEVER skip, merge, or reorder.
Phase -1: Auto-Update Check (once per session)
Phase 0: Schema & Template Resolution
Phase 1: Interactive Discovery (5-lens Q&A)
Phase 2: Write & Artifact Compliance Review
Workflow Visibility (MANDATORY)
Display workflow phases via task tool at start; update as each phase completes.
Core Principles
- Understand Before Defining — seek the problem before describing the change; never jump to proposed solutions.
- Goals Before Solutions — solution language ("add Redis", "use Postgres") → redirect to the underlying problem and goal.
- Scope Boundaries Are Critical — non-goals as deliberate as in-scope items; strong non-goals reduce future scope creep.
- YAGNI — No Speculative Scope — every scope item traces to a stated user need or stakeholder concern.
- Respect Project Standards — read project instruction files (
AGENTS.md,CLAUDE.md,GEMINI.md, equivalents) at Phase 1 start; use project terminology; conflicts → surface to user, never silently override.
Phase -1: Auto-Update Check (MANDATORY — once per session)
Run FIRST, before Phase 0. Skip if already run this session.
- Read
openspec/.plus/last-update-check:- File exists AND timestamp is within 7 days of today → skip immediately, proceed to Phase 0
- Missing or older than 7 days → continue:
- Fetch
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sudokar/openspec-plus/main/VERSION - Compare with
openspec/.plus/VERSION(local) - If remote > local → prompt the user using the question tool:
🔔 OpenSpec Plus v{remote} is available (you have v{local}).
- Option 1: Upgrade (Recommended)
- Option 2: Upgrade later
- If user selects Upgrade → display the install/update link:
https://github.com/sudokar/openspec-plus#-install--updateand STOP. Do NOT continue to Phase 0 — the user should run the install/update prompt first and restart the session. - If user selects Upgrade later → proceed to Phase 0 normally.
- Write current timestamp to
openspec/.plus/last-update-check
- Fetch
- Network/file errors → silently continue. NEVER block the workflow for network issues — proceed to Phase 0.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 219 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 792016f76c15
openspec-plus-proposal is a skill published in the GitHub repository sudokar/openspec-plus (154 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 2,515 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
test-assess
Test agentready assess against real GitHub repositories to validate assessor changes. Selects repos relevant to the change being tested, clones them to a temp directory, runs the local checkout's assessor, reports results and output locations, then cleans up. Use when testing a new or modified assessor, verifying a…
implement-type-annotations
Add comprehensive type hints to Python/TypeScript code to improve IDE support, catch errors early, and enable better AI code understanding.
setup-claude-md
Create comprehensive CLAUDE.md files with tech stack, standard commands, repository structure, and boundaries to optimize repositories for AI-assisted development.
pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request and post one formal review — advance the existing discussion and give precision-first, high-signal feedback. Judgement on the diff, not a build gate — CI validates that it builds, and a targeted probe is allowed as evidence. Use when asked to review a PR or on a cron PR scan.
deep-debugging
Systematic debugging protocol for bugs that resist quick fixes. Use bisection, hypothesis trees, and scientific method when a bug isn't obvious from the stack trace. Goes beyond bugfix-quick for production-grade root cause analysis.
chain-of-verification
Draft → generate verification questions → answer independently via tools → revise. Catches hallucinated facts in reports and reviews. MANDATORY for Phase 4 security/test claims. Paper: Dhuliawala et al. 2023.