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 zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop --skill review-spdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_developWrote 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/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/review-spd)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/review-spd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/review-spd/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/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/review-spd"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/review-spd.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00072 | $0.01322 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00529 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00264 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
review-spd 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 1mo 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review SPD
You are executing the Review SPD workflow: a findings-first review of changed code. Identify bugs, regressions, and behavior risks introduced by the changes. Do not turn this into a style review or a broad summary.
Configuration
| Item | Default | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Context script | scripts/review-context.py relative to this Review SPD skill directory |
Collect stable git context |
| Default target | Uncommitted changes | Working tree + staged changes |
| Commit range default | Last 3 days | Only when the user requests commit/date review without dates |
| PR base | Auto-detect origin/main, origin/master, then remote default branch |
Base for branch-vs-main review |
| Output style | Findings first | Findings by severity before summaries |
References: reviewer sub-agent template references/reviewer-template.md; final output format references/output-format.md.
Target Modes
Three mutually exclusive targets:
- Uncommitted mode (default)
- Commit-range mode — no explicit range → last 3 days
- Branch / PR mode — branch vs. main or explicit
base
Conflict priority: branch specified → branch mode; else since/until → commit-range mode; else uncommitted. base applies only to branch mode. Vague requests ("review this") → uncommitted mode; "recent commits" without dates → --since "3 days ago".
Phase 1: Target Resolution
Resolve the context script from the installed Review SPD skill directory, not from the repository being reviewed:
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --since "3 days ago"
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --since 2026-06-28 --until 2026-07-01
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --branch feature/foo
python <review-spd-skill-dir>/scripts/review-context.py --branch feature/foo --base origin/main
When reviewing this repository itself, the convenience wrapper scripts/review-context.py is also available.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 109 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 257eca2973f9
review-spd is a skill published in the GitHub repository zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop (991 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 1,322 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Review completed implementation batches for spec compliance and code quality. Invoke after execution batches complete, before merging, or when a review gate is reached in the workflow.
review
Uses a fresh agent to review an implementation change without editing it. Checks behavior, security, regressions, complexity, tests, docs, and missing proof. Use for code, PR, diff, security, second-opinion, or pre-merge reviews.
architecture-review
Reviews a technical proposal before implementation. Use for system architectures, feature specs, RFCs, ADRs, and issues that define how a system change should work. Finds material ambiguity and flaws in correctness, scalability, performance, security, operations, and proof.
task-to-pr
Delivers specs or decided tasks as tested, independently reviewed pull requests. Runs the CI and review repair loop, then leaves passing pull requests open unless merging was explicitly authorized.
improve
Makes existing code easier to understand without changing behavior. Use to simplify structure, remove duplication or dead code, improve names, or remove unnecessary abstractions.
review
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged.…