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-specnpx skills add Zts0hg/codexspec --skill codexspec-review-specgit 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-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-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 | $0.00022 | $0.01038 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00519 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
codexspec:review-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 5d 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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Specification 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-spec skill mention
Review Authority
Resolve the feature by explicit path, then current branch. Never silently select the latest feature.
Read requirements.md, spec.md, and the constitution. If requirements.md is absent, enter legacy compatibility mode: use spec.md as temporary authority and state that fidelity to the original discussion cannot be verified.
Authority order:
- Confirmed requirements and decisions
- The specification being reviewed
- Constitution and verified repository facts
- Applicable best practices
Review Passes
1. Fidelity
- Map every confirmed
NEED,CON,DEC, andOUTentry to the specification. - Detect omissions, semantic changes, scope expansion, promoted open questions, and ignored superseding decisions.
- Verify every
REQ/NFRhas validSources:.
2. Intrinsic Quality
Report only defects that can affect the user goal or technical planning:
- Contradictions
- Multiple materially different interpretations
- Untestable required behavior
- Missing expected behavior for relevant failure or boundary cases
- Impossible or unverifiable requirements
Do not require a section, metric, persona format, or example merely because a template contains it.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 132 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 7e8561175959
codexspec:review-spec is a skill published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 1,038 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
create-stories
Break a single epic into implementable story files. Reads the epic, its GDD, governing ADRs, and control manifest. Each story embeds its GDD requirement TR-ID, ADR guidance, acceptance criteria, story type, and test evidence path. Run after /create-epics for each epic.
bug-triage
Read all open bugs in production/qa/bugs/, re-evaluate priority vs. severity, assign to sprints, surface systemic trends, and produce a triage report. Run at sprint start or when the bug count grows enough to need re-prioritization.
bug-report
Creates a structured bug report from a description, or analyzes code to identify potential bugs. Ensures every bug report has full reproduction steps, severity assessment, and context.
playtest-report
Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis.
security-audit
Java security checklist covering OWASP Top 10, input validation, injection prevention, and secure coding. Works with Spring, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and plain Java. Use when reviewing code security, before releases, or when user asks about vulnerabilities.
audit-onboarding-proposal
Independently audit a brownfield onboarding transcript, operational map, or exact proposed documentation patch before application. Use when a fresh reviewer must verify an $onboard-repository first pass, distinguish environment-caused Unknowns from reasoning defects, score its safety and evidence gates, or run a…