Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Terry-Mao/AICodingFlow. 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/Terry-Mao/AICodingFlow/main/.github/skills/check-impl-against-spec/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Terry-Mao/AICodingFlowWrote 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/terry-mao/aicodingflow/check-impl-against-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/check-impl-against-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/check-impl-against-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/terry-mao/aicodingflow/check-impl-against-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/check-impl-against-spec.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 | $0.00044 | $0.00506 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
check-impl-against-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.
This is a copy
94% identical to check-impl-against-spec — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check implementation against spec
Use this skill only when spec_context.md exists during PR review.
Goal
Determine whether the implementation in the checked-out PR materially matches the approved spec context. This is a supplement to the normal code review, not a separate output.
Inputs
spec_context.mdcontains the spec context to compare against. It may include both product spec content (intended behavior, acceptance criteria) and tech spec content (implementation details, file changes).pr_diff.txtcontains the annotated diff for the PR.pr_description.txtmay contain additional scope or rationale.- The working tree contains the PR branch contents.
How to evaluate spec alignment
- Read
spec_context.mdand extract the concrete commitments it makes:- required behaviors (from the product spec)
- required files or subsystems to change (from the tech spec)
- stated constraints
- required follow-up steps, validation, or migrations
- Compare those commitments against the actual implementation in
pr_diff.txtand the checked-out files. - Treat small implementation-level adjustments as acceptable when they preserve the spec's intent. Do not flag harmless differences in naming, structure, or low-level technique.
- Flag a mismatch only when it is material, such as:
- required behavior in the product spec is missing
- the implementation contradicts a spec decision
- the change introduces significant unplanned scope
- a required validation, migration, or compatibility step from the tech spec is absent
How to report mismatches
- Do not create a separate report file.
- Fold spec-alignment findings into
review.json. - Put broad spec-drift concerns in the review summary.
- Add inline comments only when the mismatch can be tied to changed lines in the diff.
- Treat material spec drift as at least an important concern.
- If the implementation matches the spec closely enough, do not add comments just to mention alignment.
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 First seen · 50 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 1af02f995f30
check-impl-against-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository Terry-Mao/AICodingFlow (169 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 506 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to check-impl-against-spec, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…