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-repo/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-repo)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/review-spec-repo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/review-spec-repo/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-repo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/terry-mao/aicodingflow/review-spec-repo.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
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 →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 13 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00255 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00102 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00026 |
Grade A, and why
review-spec-repo 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.
What it actually says
review-spec-repo
This file is a companion to the core review-spec skill and
.agents/contracts/review.md.
Do not invoke this file as the primary spec review entrypoint. The primary
entrypoint is .github/skills/review-spec/SKILL.md; that skill reads this
companion when it needs repository-specific spec review guidance.
This companion may add repository-specific checks and preferences, but it must not override the core workflow, shared review contract, output schema, severity labels, diff-line targeting, validation rules, or safety rules.
Review Focus
- Check whether the spec is actionable enough for implementation work.
- Flag contradictions between requirements, examples, and acceptance criteria.
- Prefer top-level summary notes for broad product or process concerns that do not map cleanly to a changed line.
Self-Evolution Boundary
update-pr-review may update this file from repeated human feedback on spec
reviews. Keep additions concise and evidence-backed. Do not use this file to
override .agents/contracts/review.md.
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 · 32 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 859b8d8a2fc1
review-spec-repo is a skill published in the GitHub repository Terry-Mao/AICodingFlow (169 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 255 once invoked, about $0.0001 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…