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/terry-mao/aicodingflow/review-specnpx skills add Terry-Mao/AICodingFlow --skill review-specgit 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/review-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/review-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/review-spec.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00039 | $0.00980 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00490 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
review-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 4d 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
review-spec
Review one spec-only PR from stable local snapshot files and write the single
output artifact review.json.
Required Contract
Read .agents/contracts/review.md first and follow it exactly. That contract is
authoritative for snapshot trust, untrusted-input handling, PR_DIFF_V1
targeting, review.json structure, severity labels, suggestion blocks,
validator requirements, and GitHub/API boundaries.
Do not run gh, post comments, regenerate snapshots, modify the spec files
being reviewed, or modify files other than review.json.
Purpose
Use this skill for PRs whose changed files are all under specs/, including
product specs, technical specs, design notes, plans, and similar planning
documents. This skill reuses the shared review contract but changes the review
lens from code defects to document quality.
Applicability
Before reviewing content, inspect the changed file paths in pr_diff.txt.
If every changed file is under specs/, perform a spec document review.
If any changed file is outside specs/:
- Do not perform code-level review.
- Write a valid
review.json. - Put a top-level
bodynote explaining that the PR is outside spec-only review scope and should usereview-pror be split. - Use
comments: []unless there is a spec-document finding that can still be safely attached to a changedspecs/line.
Local Guidance
After applying the shared contract, read
.github/skills/review-spec-repo/SKILL.md when it exists and apply any
non-conflicting repository-specific guidance.
Always read .github/skills/security-review-spec/SKILL.md and apply it as a
non-conflicting supplemental design-level security pass on spec PRs. Fold any
security findings into the same review.json; do not emit a separate output.
Review Focus
Prioritize findings that would materially affect implementation, review quality, or the ability to use the specs as source-of-truth planning documents:
- Completeness: missing goals, non-goals, acceptance criteria, validation plans, edge cases, rollout notes, or open questions required by the issue or PR.
- Clarity: ambiguous requirements, undefined terms, unclear state transitions, vague validation language, or requirements an implementation agent could reasonably misread.
- Feasibility: plans that do not fit the current repository structure, permissions, automation boundaries, skill contracts, or validation workflow.
- Alignment: scope drift, missing issue requirements, invented requirements, or product and technical specs that do not reflect the PR or issue intent.
- Consistency: contradictions within a spec, between product and tech specs, or between examples, acceptance criteria, and validation steps.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 100 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 870a947f177f
review-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository Terry-Mao/AICodingFlow (165 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 980 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…