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/tercel/spec-forge/reviewnpx skills add tercel/spec-forge --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tercel/spec-forgeWhat 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 | $0.00080 | $0.02489 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.01244 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00498 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00249 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 2d 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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review — Specification Quality & Consistency Review
Systematically review spec-forge generated documents for quality, completeness, and internal consistency. Optionally auto-fix issues found.
Core Principles
- Evidence-based: Every finding must cite a specific file and section — no vague complaints
- Spec-focused: Review specification documents only (tech-design, feature specs, overview) — not code, not upstream idea drafts
- Upstream-aware: Use idea drafts and project manifests as reference context to validate spec accuracy, but do not review them
- Prioritized: Findings classified by severity so the user can act on what matters first
- Conservative fixes: Auto-fix only touches cited sections; when domain knowledge is missing, leave a
<!-- REVIEW: {question} -->comment instead of guessing - Honest: Report real issues, don't inflate findings to look thorough
Severity Levels
| Severity | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Wrong, contradictory, or misleading content | Feature spec API signature contradicts tech-design, component boundary mismatch |
| Major | Significant gap that would block or confuse implementation | Empty required section, missing error handling spec, undefined edge cases |
| Minor | Quality issue that degrades usefulness but isn't blocking | Vague description, missing cross-reference, inconsistent terminology |
Workflow
Step 1: Determine Review Scope
Parse the arguments to determine what to review:
- If a
feature_nameargument is provided, look for:docs/{feature_name}/tech-design.md- All feature specs in
docs/features/(glob fordocs/features/*.md) - Upstream reference:
ideas/{feature_name}/draft.md(if exists) - Project manifest:
docs/project-{feature_name}.md(if exists, for multi-split context)
- If no argument, scan
docs/for the most recent tech-design and all feature specs indocs/features/ - If no spec documents found, inform the user and stop
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 233 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 6252e621a96c
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tercel/spec-forge (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 2,489 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
ppt-design-skill
Design, generate, review, and revise editable PowerPoint presentations through a rigorous brief-to-PNG workflow using the public pptx-designer Python library.
manager
Sync session work into GitHub issues, or query track status across repos. Write: find/update issue + W-label. Read: "что по ". Triggers: "создай issue", "синкни сессию", "manager". Not day/week plans (daily-tasks).
weekly-retro
Use when the user is closing an ISO week, reviewing planned outcomes against evidence, interviewing work Areas, resolving unfinished commitments, or asking for "ретро", "weekly retro", "week review", or lessons from the week.
art-director
Orchestrate iterative visual style searches with branch prompts, decision graphs, feedback loops, and final direction selection.
corp-doctor
Use when a Personal Corp operating loop needs setup, repair, a new department, or task routing: HQ files and agent rules, GitHub issue workflow, corp- owner map, department repositories, or deciding which repo an issue belongs to. Triggers: "corp doctor", "почини контур", "заведи отдел", "куда положить задачу"…
html-draft
Use when user wants a standalone HTML diagram in flat engineering blueprint style — architecture diagrams, system flows, technical spec sheets, component maps. Generates one HTML file using Tailwind v4 (browser CDN) for layout and D3 v7 (CDN) for SVG diagrams. User-invoked only — do NOT auto-trigger. Triggers on…