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 skills add tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile --skill work-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tileWrote 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/tesslio/spec-driven-development-tile/work-review)<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.
<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>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 | $0.00082 | $0.00709 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00071 |
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.
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
-
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 -
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Update spec metadata. If implementation changed the file structure:
- Update
targets:for new, moved, or deleted files - Update
[@test]links for restructured tests
- Update
-
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
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 158ccbf0ffdb
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.
work-review compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| work-reviewtesslio/spec-driven-development-tile | Skill | 57 | 7mo ago | MIT | A | 82 | Claude Code, Codex |
| autoreviewopenclaw/clawhub | Skill | 9.5k | yesterday | MIT | A | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |
| agent-teams-simplify-and-hardenLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills | Skill | 2.2k | 6d ago | MIT | A | 115 | Claude Code, Codex |
| omh-code-reviewrlaope/oh-my-hermes | Skill | 5.2k | yesterday | MIT | A | 48 | Claude Code, Codex |
| revdiff-planumputun/revdiff | Skill | 945 | yesterday | MIT | A | 84 | Claude Code |
| explore-unknownsdzhng/skills | Skill | 1.4k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 162 | Claude Code, Codex |
| re0-mergeLilMGenius/paperthin | Skill | 1.4k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 70 | Claude Code |