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/review-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/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/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/review-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/review-spec.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 5 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 60 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 Agent Snooping · line 46 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 88 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 49 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 90 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00039 | $0.00980 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 (169 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 980 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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…