Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to terrene-foundation/metis. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/terrene-foundation/metis/main/.claude/skills/spec-compliance/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/terrene-foundation/metisWrote 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/terrene-foundation/metis/spec-compliance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/terrene-foundation/metis/spec-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terrene-foundation/metis/spec-compliance/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/terrene-foundation/metis/spec-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terrene-foundation/metis/spec-compliance.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00035 | $0.02609 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.01305 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00522 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00261 |
Grade A, and why
spec-compliance 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 7d 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 — 228 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Compliance Audit
File existence is NOT compliance. A file wrapper_base.py may exist while none of the spec-required classes inside it do. This skill defines how to verify spec compliance via direct code inspection — AST parsing and targeted greps — instead of trusting that a file at the right path means the right content is there.
When to Use
/redteamStep 1 — primary use, every round/codifyvalidation gate before knowledge capture- Any "is the plan implemented?" question
The Failure Mode This Prevents
A previous BUILD repo run reported "39/39 PASS, 0 CRITICAL, 0 HIGH" via a convergence-verify.py script. A follow-up deep audit found 27+ CRITICAL findings:
StreamingAgent.run_stream()was a fake stream — yielded one syntheticTextDeltafrom a single innerrun_async()callBaseAgentConfig.posturefield didn't exist (grep returned 0 hits in entirekaizen/core/)@deprecateddecorator was defined indeprecation.pybut never imported bybase_agent.pyclient.pywas COPIED, not MOVED — both source and destination existed at full size, drifting apart- New wrapper modules had ZERO test coverage (
grep "from kaizen_agents.wrapper_base" tests/returned empty) - Spec § Security Threats subsections existed only in spec text — no
test_<threat>functions
The convergence script existed but it was an existence checker ((path / "__init__.py").exists()), not a compliance checker. The audit must NOT rely on self-reports written by previous rounds.
The Method: Spec → Acceptance Assertions → AST/Grep
For each spec section, write down a literal acceptance assertion table, then verify each row against the actual code. Re-derive every check from scratch each round.
Step 1: Extract Acceptance Assertions From Spec
Read the spec text verbatim. For each promised artifact, write the literal assertion:
| Spec promise | Acceptance assertion |
|---|---|
"StreamingAgent.run_stream() yields TextDelta tokens incrementally" |
grep def run_stream in src; AST: must yield ≥2 distinct values across the loop, NOT a single yield from a single inner.run_async() call |
"BaseAgentConfig has frozen field posture: Posture" |
grep posture: in BaseAgentConfig dataclass body |
"@deprecated decorator applied to 7 extension points" |
grep @deprecated in base_agent.py — must hit ≥7 distinct methods |
"MOVE handler.py from app/legacy/ to app/v2/" |
source must be deleted OR <50 LOC OR import-and-warn shim |
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 228 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A c2d7122895b5
spec-compliance is a skill published in the GitHub repository terrene-foundation/metis (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,609 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…