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 sudokar/openspec-plus --skill openspec-plus-specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sudokar/openspec-plusWrote 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/sudokar/openspec-plus/openspec-plus-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sudokar/openspec-plus/openspec-plus-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sudokar/openspec-plus/openspec-plus-spec/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/sudokar/openspec-plus/openspec-plus-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sudokar/openspec-plus/openspec-plus-spec.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Memory Poisoning · line 125 Skill manipulates agent memory, state, or stored context. Memory corruption can alter personality, override safety rules, or cause unpredictable behavior.Fix: Protect agent memory and state from modification by untrusted content. Use read-only memory for critical instructions and validate all state changes.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 110 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00088 | $0.04008 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.01603 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00802 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00401 |
Grade A, and why
openspec-plus-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 346 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
OpenSpec Plus Spec
Mission
Strengthen specification quality. Requirements complete, testable, unambiguous, expressed as Gherkin scenarios for behavioral correctness, aligned with approved proposal and any existing design. Improves requirement quality before design (spec-first) or aligns requirements with existing design boundaries (design-first).
This skill is RIGID. NEVER write any spec file before completing Phase 1, presenting analysis to user, passing pre-write alignment gate, and (after writing) running self-review subagent. Running analysis internally and writing immediately is a skill violation — even if you checked every gate.
Red flags — STOP, you are about to violate this skill:
- "I already checked all the gates"
- "The requirements look complete from the proposal"
- "The user wants this quickly, I'll just write it"
- "I surfaced these gaps in my reasoning, that counts"
- "I'll list all my ambiguities in a table and ask the user to fill them in"
- "I'll ask all questions at once so the user can answer in one message" (unless
settings.questionMode: batch— then it's the documented procedure, not a shortcut) - "These ambiguities are related so I'll group them into one question" (outside configured
batchmode) - "Free-form scenarios are clearer than Gherkin here"
- "I should read the code to understand the context"
- "The code I need to read is small, I'll just open it directly"
- "I'll skim the spec myself, the reviewer subagent isn't needed"
- "The fixes from the reviewer were minor, I should re-dispatch to confirm"
Inputs Available
OpenSpec allows either order after proposal:
proposal → spec → design(no design yet)proposal → design → spec(design exists)
When this skill runs:
- ALWAYS read approved proposal — authoritative source of intent
- If design exists, ALWAYS read it — constrains acceptable spec language and bounded behavior
- Spec MUST align with proposal AND any existing design
Workflow
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 Changed · -5 lines 9ebda0fb73fa
- 1mo ago First seen · 351 lines · 88 tokens per session scan A 8cf4ab6ed1c1
openspec-plus-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository sudokar/openspec-plus (215 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 88 tokens to every session and 4,008 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
ai-code-generation-guardrails
Use when reviewing AI-generated code before merge or execution: plan AST/security checks, isolated behavior tests and evidence, with language-specific coverage limits.
implement-type-annotations
Add comprehensive type hints to Python/TypeScript code to improve IDE support, catch errors early, and enable better AI code understanding.
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.
tech-writing
Write professional technical documents — requirements/PRD, tech spec/design doc, low-level design, decision records, and trade-off analysis — at a formality tier matched to the task. Grounds every claim in real code or a cited source, marks what it could not verify, and refuses to pad. Use when asked to write/update a…
plan-orchestrator
Route hierarchical-planning intents to the correct backing script. Use when the user invokes /aura-frog:plan (with or without subcommand), mentions plan verbs (expand/next/replan/promote/archive/freeze/thaw/undo/status/conflicts), or types a plan-vocabulary bare word with .claude/plans/active.json present. Owns verb…
perf-profiling
Systematic performance profiling and optimization across frontend (Core Web Vitals, code splitting, lazy loading), backend (N+1 queries, async), and database (EXPLAIN ANALYZE, indexing) layers. Use when the user reports slow code, latency, memory leaks, needs to benchmark, or wants to speed up an application. Measure…