work-review

work-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile. It costs 82 tokens per session (709 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A completion-checking skill that compares finished implementation work with approved specifications and their tests. A specification is a written list of the required behavior.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after implementation or before declaring a task complete to inspect changed files, check each requirement, verify test links, run the linked tests, and produce a pass-or-fail summary.
Why use it?
It confirms that the delivered code meets every requirement and exposes missing edge cases, absent tests, or documentation that no longer matches the implementation.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it after implementation or before declaring a task complete to inspect changed files, check each requirement, verify test links, run the linked tests, and produce a pass-or-fail summary.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile --skill work-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for work-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for work-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 82 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 709 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00082 $0.00709
Opus 5.5 $0.00033 $0.00284
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00016 $0.00142
Haiku 4.5 $0.00008 $0.00071

Measured 2mo ago against content hash 158ccbf0ffdb, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

work-review 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 2mo 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.

skills/work-review/SKILL.md · 78 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Work Review

Review completed implementation to confirm all spec requirements are satisfied and specs remain accurate.

When to use

  • After completing implementation of a spec-driven task
  • Before marking a task as done
  • When a stakeholder asks to verify completeness

Steps

  1. Find relevant specs. Identify all specs whose targets: match the files changed during implementation:

    # List changed files, then find specs targeting them
    git diff --name-only HEAD~1 | head -20
    grep -rl "targets:" specs/*.spec.md
    
  2. Check each requirement. Walk through every requirement in the spec. For each one:

    • Read the target file and confirm the requirement is implemented
    • Record the file path and line number where it's implemented (e.g., src/auth.py:42)
    • Verify edge cases called out in the spec are handled
    • For each [@test] link, confirm the test exists and exercises the requirement
  3. Run linked tests. Execute all [@test] paths and record results:

    grep -rh '\[@test\]' specs/*.spec.md | sed 's/.*\[@test\] *//' | sed 's/`$//'
    

    If any test fails, the review cannot pass — diagnose before continuing.

  4. Capture ALL discovered requirements. Compare the implementation against the spec and identify every behavioral difference — not just new features, but also:

    • Functions or events in the code that the spec doesn't mention
    • Behavior that differs from what the spec describes (e.g., silent skip vs. raising an error)
    • New error handling paths, default values, or configuration not in the spec

    For each discovered requirement:

    • Add it to the relevant spec
    • Link any tests that were created for it
  5. Update spec metadata. If implementation changed the file structure:

    • Update targets: for new, moved, or deleted files
    • Update [@test] links for restructured tests
  6. Produce review summary:

    ## Review: [Spec Name]
    
    ### Requirements
    - [x] Requirement 1 — implemented in src/foo.py:42
    - [x] Requirement 2 — implemented in src/bar.py:18
    - [ ] Requirement 3 — MISSING: no error handling for empty input
    
    ### Discovered requirements
    - Added: timeout handling for API calls (not in original spec)
    
    ### Test results
    - Linked tests: 5 passed, 0 failed
    - New tests added: tests/test_timeout.py
    
    ### Spec updates
    - Added timeout requirement to section 3
    - Updated targets to include src/baz.py
    

Read the full file on GitHub · 78 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 158ccbf0ffdb

Subscribe to this mod's changes

work-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile (57 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 709 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.

Related

work-review compared with skills from other repositories

work-review next to 6 skills from other repositories
ModTypeStarsLast pushLicenceScanTokensWorks with
work-reviewtesslio/spec-driven-development-tileSkill577mo agoMITA82Claude Code, Codex
autoreviewopenclaw/clawhubSkill9.5kyesterdayMITA17Claude Code, Codex
agent-teams-simplify-and-hardenLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skillsSkill2.2k6d agoMITA115Claude Code, Codex
omh-code-reviewrlaope/oh-my-hermesSkill5.2kyesterdayMITA48Claude Code, Codex
revdiff-planumputun/revdiffSkill945yesterdayMITA84Claude Code
explore-unknownsdzhng/skillsSkill1.4k2d agoMITA162Claude Code, Codex
re0-mergeLilMGenius/paperthinSkill1.4k4d agoMITA70Claude Code