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 tranhieutt/software_development_department --skill review-specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_departmentWrote 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/tranhieutt/software_development_department/review-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/review-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/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/tranhieutt/software_development_department/review-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/review-spec.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01246 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00623 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00249 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00125 |
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 6d 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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Spec
Purpose
review-spec validates whether a specification is strong enough to become the
source of truth for planning, TDD, implementation, and verification. It is a
read-only quality gate. It does not write code and it does not approve execution
by itself.
Use this workflow to prevent weak specs from becoming precise-looking plans with hidden ambiguity.
Core Rule
No implementation plan from an unreviewed or materially ambiguous spec.
If the spec cannot be tested, reviewed against code, or handed to another agent
without guessing, return CHANGES REQUIRED.
Workflow
1. Identify the Source of Truth
- Locate the spec file, issue, PRD section, conversation summary, or design doc.
- Read only the surrounding context needed to understand the feature boundary.
- If no spec exists, stop and route to
spec-driven-development. - If the current code appears to contradict the spec, stop and route to
spec-evolutioninstead of silently reviewing only one side.
2. Classify the Spec
Classify the spec as one or more:
- Product behavior
- Technical architecture
- API/data contract
- UI/UX flow
- Test/verification contract
- Release or migration plan
Use the classification to decide which checks matter most. For example, an API spec must define request/response contracts and error behavior; a UI spec must define states, accessibility requirements, and responsive behavior.
3. Review Against the Readiness Checklist
Evaluate the spec using these criteria:
| Area | Required standard |
|---|---|
| Objective | One clear outcome, user/system value, and non-goals |
| Scope | Explicit in-scope and out-of-scope boundaries |
| Behavior | Observable acceptance criteria, including failure states |
| Contracts | API, data, events, files, or UI state contracts are concrete |
| Architecture | Fits existing patterns or names required ADR/escalation |
| Dependencies | Upstream/downstream dependencies and ordering are known |
| Verification | Commands, tests, build, lint, manual, or visual checks are named |
| Rollback | Risk and rollback/disable path are stated for risky changes |
| Handoff | Another agent can plan from it without inventing requirements |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 151 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A e964732e7949
review-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository tranhieutt/software_development_department (72 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,246 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
execute
Dispatch and execute implementation plans with TDD and checkpoints. Use when plan is ready. Parallel by default for independent tasks.
tdd
Strict test-driven development for behavior changes. Requires verified RED before production code, minimal GREEN, and refactor only after passing tests.
cm-tdd
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
test-driven-development
Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code.
tdd-workflow
A test-first development workflow, commonly called TDD, where a failing test is written before the code that should make it pass. The cycle then adds the smallest working change and cleans it up.
user-story
Create user stories with Mike Cohn format and Gherkin acceptance criteria. Use when turning user needs into development-ready work with clear outcomes and testable conditions.