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 agentmods add skills/warpdotdev/common-skills/check-impl-against-specnpx skills add warpdotdev/common-skills --skill check-impl-against-specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skillsWrote 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/warpdotdev/common-skills/check-impl-against-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/warpdotdev/common-skills/check-impl-against-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/warpdotdev/common-skills/check-impl-against-spec.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 | $0.00044 | $0.00498 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00249 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
check-impl-against-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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- check-impl-against-spec — 94% identical, 6 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check implementation against spec
Use this skill only when spec_context.md exists during PR review.
Goal
Determine whether the implementation in the checked-out PR materially matches the approved spec context. This is a supplement to the normal code review, not a separate output.
Inputs
spec_context.mdcontains the spec context to compare against. It may include both product spec content (intended behavior, acceptance criteria) and tech spec content (implementation details, file changes).pr_diff.txtcontains the annotated diff for the PR.pr_description.mdmay contain additional scope or rationale.- The working tree contains the PR branch contents.
Process
- Read
spec_context.mdand extract the concrete commitments it makes:- required behaviors (from the product spec)
- required files or subsystems to change (from the tech spec)
- stated constraints
- required follow-up steps, validation, or migrations
- Compare those commitments against the actual implementation in
pr_diff.txtand the checked-out files. - Treat small implementation-level adjustments as acceptable when they preserve the spec's intent. Do not flag harmless differences in naming, structure, or low-level technique.
- Flag a mismatch only when it is material, such as:
- required behavior in the product spec is missing
- the implementation contradicts a spec decision
- the change introduces significant unplanned scope
- a required validation, migration, or compatibility step from the tech spec is absent
Outputs
- Do not create a separate report file.
- Fold spec-alignment findings into
review.json. - Put broad spec-drift concerns in the review summary.
- Add inline comments only when the mismatch can be tied to changed lines in the diff.
- Treat material spec drift as at least an important concern.
- If the implementation matches the spec closely enough, do not add comments just to mention alignment.
Boundaries
- Do not require literal one-to-one implementation of the spec when the PR achieves the same outcome safely.
- Do not speculate about spec details that are not actually present in
spec_context.md. - Do not post to GitHub directly.
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 · 50 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A c0e5d80739ae
check-impl-against-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository warpdotdev/common-skills (530 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 498 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…
next-partial-prefetching-adoption
Turn on Partial Prefetching in a Next.js app and work through the insights it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable or adopt Partial Prefetching, flip the partialPrefetching flag, opt routes in with export const prefetch = 'partial', audit Link prefetch={true} behavior, preserve existing prefetched UI with…
chronicle
Analyze Copilot session history for standup reports, usage tips, session search, and session reindexing. Use when the user asks for a standup, daily summary, usage tips, workflow recommendations, wants to search or find past sessions by keyword/file/PR, wants to reindex their session store, or asks about deleting…