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/oz-for-oss/create-tech-specnpx skills add warpdotdev/oz-for-oss --skill create-tech-specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/warpdotdev/oz-for-ossWhat 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 | $0.00086 | $0.00971 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
create-tech-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 2d 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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
create-tech-spec
Create a tech spec from a GitHub issue for this repository.
Overview
This skill is a thin Oz wrapper around the shared tech-spec workflow:
write-tech-spec
Use that shared skill as the base behavior and structure unless this wrapper overrides it. Keep the same emphasis on grounding the plan in current code, documenting relevant files and data flow, explaining tradeoffs, and defining validation.
The Oz-specific differences are:
- the primary input is a GitHub issue, not a Linear issue
- the output path is
specs/GH<issue-number>/tech.md issue_comments.mdand triggering-comment context are additional design inputs- a workflow may also request a structured PR metadata file in
pr-metadata.json - do not create or edit Linear issues as part of this workflow
Inputs
Expect issue details in the prompt, including the issue number, title, description, labels, assignees, and optional prior discussion captured in issue_comments.md.
When available, the product spec at specs/GH<issue-number>/product.md should be treated as the primary input for understanding the intended behavior. The tech spec translates that product intent into an implementation approach.
Process
- Start from the shared
write-tech-specguidance and follow its structure and writing standards unless this wrapper says otherwise. - Read the issue details carefully. If a product spec exists at
specs/GH<issue-number>/product.md, read it first to understand the intended behavior. Ifissue_comments.mdexists, review it for clarifications, prior decisions, and design nuance that should influence the tech plan. - Inspect the repository to understand the current implementation and the likely scope of the requested work before writing the spec. Do not guess about current architecture when the code can be inspected directly.
- Create or update
specs/GH<issue-number>/tech.md. - Use the shared skill's structure as the baseline, adapted to this repository and issue format. At minimum, cover:
- problem
- relevant code
- current state
- proposed changes
- end-to-end flow when useful
- risks and mitigations
- testing and validation
- follow-ups or open technical questions
- Keep the tech spec concise, actionable, and grounded in actual code paths and ownership boundaries in this repository.
- Do not implement the feature or modify production code as part of this task. Limit changes to the tech spec artifact and any minimal repository metadata needed to support it. Treat temporary context files such as
issue_comments.mdas scratch input only and do not commit them. - Do not include issue number references (e.g.
(#N),Refs #N) in commit messages. The issue is already linked in the PR. - If the prompt asks for it, write
pr-metadata.jsonat the repository root containing a JSON object with the fieldsbranch_name,pr_title, andpr_summary. Thepr_summaryshould summarize the resulting spec changes, validation, and any reviewer-relevant assumptions or open questions. For spec-only PRs, include a non-closing reference to the source issue such asRelated issue: #<issue-number>rather than closing keywords likeClosesorFixes. - Default behavior: do not stage files, create commits, push branches, open pull requests, or use the GitHub CLI. If the prompt explicitly instructs you to publish a named branch, you may commit and push exactly the requested spec changes to that branch, but still do not open or update the pull request yourself unless the prompt explicitly asks for it.
- In your final response, provide a brief summary of the tech spec and call out any assumptions or open questions so the workflow can reuse that summary when creating the PR.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 59 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 40124feef1dd
create-tech-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository warpdotdev/oz-for-oss (304 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 971 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
agent-host-chat-contributions
Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions. Use when adding turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation, or when reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.