Files
Lixin2026 d5fe2e6a78 feat(codex): add UI metadata for skills (#175)
* feat(codex): add skill UI metadata

* Use official Trail of Bits logo

* fix: resolve code review findings for PR #175

Codex silently drops the icons as authored: its loader
(codex-rs/core-skills resolve_asset_path) requires icon paths
containing '..' to resolve under <plugin_root>/assets/, and the
repo-root .codex/assets location fails that containment check.
Verified empirically via codex app-server plugin/read: every
iconSmall/iconLarge came back null; only brand_color applied.

P1 fixed:
- Vendor trail-of-bits-mark.svg into plugins/<name>/assets/ for
  all 38 plugins with skills and point every openai.yaml at
  ../../assets/trail-of-bits-mark.svg (the supported plugin-level
  shared asset pattern). Icons now resolve for marketplace
  installs too, since nothing escapes the plugin root.
- Drop the .codex/ additions: .codex/skills/gh-cli/agents/
  openai.yaml resolved nowhere (.codex/skills is not a Codex
  discovery root) and PR #173 removes the whole .codex/ tree

P2 fixed:
- Patch-bump all 38 touched plugins in plugin.json and
  marketplace.json so installed clients pick up the metadata

Verified:
- Static check replicating Codex's resolution algorithm: all 73
  yaml files resolve under their plugin assets/ and exist
- Live codex app-server probe: 71/72 loadable skills report
  resolved iconSmall/iconLarge and brand_color #D83A34
  (claude-in-chrome-troubleshooting fails to load on main due to
  a pre-existing 64-char qualified-name limit, fixed by #173's
  rename; zeroize-audit's manifest mcpServers object is likewise
  a pre-existing Codex incompatibility fixed by #173)
- validate_codex_skills.py, validate_plugin_metadata.py, prek all
  pass

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(codex): use skill-local icon assets

---------

Co-authored-by: Dan Guido <dan@trailofbits.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-05 12:28:41 -04:00
..

Spec-to-Code Compliance

Specification-to-code compliance checker for blockchain audits with evidence-based alignment analysis.

Author: Omar Inuwa

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to:

  • Verify that code implements exactly what documentation specifies
  • Find gaps between intended behavior and actual implementation
  • Audit smart contracts against whitepapers or design documents
  • Identify undocumented code behavior or unimplemented spec claims

What It Does

This skill performs deterministic, evidence-based alignment between specifications and code:

  • Documentation Discovery - Finds all spec sources (whitepapers, READMEs, design notes)
  • Spec Intent Extraction - Normalizes all intended behavior into structured format
  • Code Behavior Analysis - Line-by-line semantic analysis of actual implementation
  • Alignment Comparison - Maps spec items to code with match types and confidence scores
  • Divergence Classification - Categorizes misalignments by severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)

Key Principle

Zero speculation. Every claim must be backed by:

  • Exact quotes from documentation (section/title)
  • Specific code references (file + line numbers)
  • Confidence scores (0-1) for all mappings

Installation

/plugin install trailofbits/skills/plugins/spec-to-code-compliance

Phases

  1. Documentation Discovery - Identify all spec sources
  2. Format Normalization - Create clean spec corpus
  3. Spec Intent IR - Extract all intended behavior
  4. Code Behavior IR - Line-by-line code analysis
  5. Alignment IR - Compare spec to code
  6. Divergence Classification - Categorize misalignments
  7. Final Report - Generate audit-grade compliance report

Match Types

  • full_match - Code exactly implements spec
  • partial_match - Incomplete implementation
  • mismatch - Spec says X, code does Y
  • missing_in_code - Spec claim not implemented
  • code_stronger_than_spec - Code adds behavior
  • code_weaker_than_spec - Code misses requirements

Anti-Hallucination Rules

  • If spec is silent: classify as UNDOCUMENTED
  • If code adds behavior: classify as UNDOCUMENTED CODE PATH
  • If unclear: classify as AMBIGUOUS
  • Every claim must quote original text or line numbers
  • context-building - Deep code understanding
  • issue-writer - Format compliance gaps as findings