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/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-designnpx skills add Zts0hg/codexspec --skill codexspec-review-designgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Zts0hg/codexspecWrote 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/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-design.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 | $0.00023 | $0.00945 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00473 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
codexspec:review-design 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 3d 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design Reviewer
Language Preference
Read .codexspec/config.yml. Two independent language controls apply (each falls back to language.output, then English):
- Interaction language (
language.interaction): language for all conversation with the user — questions, explanations, status messages, andcodexspecCLI terminal output. - Document language (
language.document): language for generated artifact files (requirements/spec/plan/tasks).
Converse in the interaction language and author artifacts in the document language. Apply the project's translation standard to both: translate by meaning (not word-for-word), keep English for terms with no good native equivalent, and write as if originally in that language.
User Input
the text after the $codexspec:review-design skill mention
Review Authority
Resolve by explicit path, then current branch; never silently select the latest feature.
Read requirements.md, spec.md, design.md, the constitution, and only the repository files necessary to verify design claims.
If requirements.md is absent, use legacy spec-only mode and disclose that original-discussion fidelity cannot be verified.
Authority order:
- Confirmed requirements
- Specification
- Constitution and verified repository facts
- Design-level technical decisions
- Applicable best practices
Review Passes
1. Fidelity and Coverage
- Verify every
REQ/NFRhas design coverage. - Verify each component, interface, data change, and design decision has
Covers:. - Detect omitted behavior, semantic changes, scope expansion, and design decisions that override confirmed trade-offs.
- Verify design-level assumptions remain labeled and do not become product requirements.
2. Feasibility and Internal Quality
Report evidence-backed defects such as:
- Referencing nonexistent modules, APIs, paths, or capabilities
- Contradictory component responsibilities or interfaces
- Missing design decisions that genuinely block planning
- Invalid data, compatibility, security, or interface assumptions
- Complexity that creates concrete risk without serving a confirmed requirement
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +7 tokens per session ee9dd01d79f8
- 6d ago First seen · 130 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A f7ba29e932dd
codexspec:review-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 945 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
solid-principles
SOLID principles checklist with Java examples. Use when a class has too many responsibilities, an abstraction leaks, or a dependency points the wrong way, and when the user asks about Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov, Interface Segregation or Dependency Inversion. For naming, duplication and method length…
clean-code
Clean Code principles (DRY, KISS, YAGNI), naming, function design and readability. Use when code is hard to read, with long methods, unclear names, duplication or deep nesting. For how responsibilities are split across classes and which way dependencies point, use solid-principles instead.
architecture-review
Analyze Java project architecture at macro level - package structure, module boundaries, dependency direction, and layering. Use when user asks "review architecture", "check structure", "package organization", or when evaluating if a codebase follows clean architecture principles.
concurrency-review
Review Java concurrency code for thread safety, race conditions, deadlocks, and modern patterns (Virtual Threads, CompletableFuture, @Async). Use when user asks "check thread safety", "concurrency review", "async code review", or when reviewing multi-threaded code.
java-code-review
Systematic code review for Java with null safety, exception handling, concurrency, and performance checks. Use when user says "review code", "check this PR", "code review", or before merging changes.
pr-review
Autonomous local code review. Reviews either an open PR's diff (via gh) or the local working diff against a base branch (--local, auto-selected when no PR exists yet), spawns a dedicated review subagent with universal + stack-specific severity criteria, posts the review as a comment on the PR (audit trail; skipped in…