Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to UmarHassanKhan929/react-profiler-mcp. 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/UmarHassanKhan929/react-profiler-mcp/main/.cursor/skills/speckit-analyze/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/UmarHassanKhan929/react-profiler-mcpWrote 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/umarhassankhan929/react-profiler-mcp/speckit-analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/umarhassankhan929/react-profiler-mcp/speckit-analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/umarhassankhan929/react-profiler-mcp/speckit-analyze.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.02294 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01147 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00459 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00229 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-analyze 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 8d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 256 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 05205af63fdd
speckit-analyze is a skill published in the GitHub repository UmarHassanKhan929/react-profiler-mcp (3 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 2,294 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
ralph
Ralph - persistent self-referential execution loop wrapping ultrawork with independent verifier verification.
review
Full QA review pipeline covering security audit (OWASP Top 10), performance analysis, accessibility check (WCAG 2.1 AA), and code quality review.
ultrawork
Ultrawork - high-quality 5-phase development workflow with 11 review steps out of 17.
oma-refactor
Behavior-preserving refactoring specialist - plans and executes safe incremental restructuring with code smell / SATD / hotspot targeting, characterization-test safety nets, metric and coverage gates, and refactor-only commits. Use for refactor, refactoring, code smell, technical debt, legacy code modernization…
review-ticket
Review a ticket or PR through focused specialist lenses: scope, architecture, security, tests, AC coverage, and PR metadata.
factory-rereview
Re-review a pull request after a push — reconcile the previous review against the new commits, look for new defects the push introduced, then a fresh pass over the whole PR, and finish with a verdict on the PR.