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-tasksnpx skills add Zts0hg/codexspec --skill codexspec-review-tasksgit 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-tasks)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-tasks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zts0hg/codexspec/codexspec-review-tasks.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 | $0.00025 | $0.01022 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00511 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00204 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
codexspec:review-tasks 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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Tasks 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-tasks skill mention
Review Authority
Resolve by explicit path, then current branch; never silently select the latest feature.
Read requirements.md, spec.md, design.md, plan.md, tasks.md, the constitution, and relevant repository paths.
If requirements.md is absent, use legacy spec-only mode and disclose that original-discussion fidelity cannot be verified. A legacy feature may also have no design.md; when it is absent, proceed without the design link.
Authority order:
- Confirmed requirements
- Specification
- Constitution and verified repository facts
design.md- Approved plan
- Task list
- Applicable best practices
Review Passes
1. Fidelity and Coverage
- Map plan deliverables and
REQ/NFRitems to tasks. - Verify every task includes
Covers:and a plan reference, or is explicitly justified implementation support. - Detect omitted deliverables, unauthorized scope, redesign hidden inside tasks, and tasks based on superseded or open requirements.
2. Executability and Internal Quality
Report only evidence-backed defects:
- A task lacks a verifiable outcome
- Required paths or dependencies are wrong or impossible
- A dependency is circular or a dependent is ordered first
- Verification is insufficient for an actual requirement or repository quality gate
- Task boundaries make the result impossible to implement or validate
- A parallel marker is unsafe because declared work overlaps or depends on unfinished output
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 · 134 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A ffccedb79b4a
codexspec:review-tasks is a skill published in the GitHub repository Zts0hg/codexspec (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 1,022 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…