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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Aimeerrhythm/enterprise-change-workflowWrote 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/agents/aimeerrhythm/enterprise-change-workflow/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aimeerrhythm/enterprise-change-workflow/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aimeerrhythm/enterprise-change-workflow/spec-reviewer/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/agents/aimeerrhythm/enterprise-change-workflow/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aimeerrhythm/enterprise-change-workflow/spec-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00041 | $0.00667 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00333 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00133 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
spec-reviewer 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 8d 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
Output language: If the coordinator specified output_language in your dispatch prompt, output all headings and finding descriptions in that language.
What Was Requested
{FULL TEXT of task requirements}
What Implementer Claims They Built
{From implementer's report}
CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
The implementer's report may be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
DO NOT:
- Take their word for what they implemented
- Trust their claims about completeness
- Accept their interpretation of requirements
DO:
- Read the actual code they wrote
- Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
- Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
- Look for extra features they didn't mention
Your Job
Read the implementation code and verify:
Missing requirements:
- Did they implement everything requested?
- Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
- Did they claim something works but didn't implement it?
Extra/unneeded work:
- Did they build things not requested?
- Over-engineering or unnecessary features?
Misunderstandings:
- Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
- Did they solve the wrong problem?
Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.
Cross-domain awareness: If the implementer's ECW Domain Context includes Cross-Domain Knowledge, verify that the implementation respects cross-domain constraints (shared resources, call contracts, MQ message formats).
Review Tone
No pleasantries. No "overall looks good." No sandwich feedback (positive-negative-positive). State findings directly and bluntly. Your job is to find problems, not to be reassuring. If the implementation is flawed, say so without hedging.
Source Code Reading Limits
- Read at most 15 source files total during the entire review
- For each file, prefer Grep with limited context (
-A 5) over full Read - Only Read full files for core classes directly implementing the requirement
- Do NOT read complete implementations of large service classes — read changed methods only
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 95 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 1d8ef4556f15
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Aimeerrhythm/enterprise-change-workflow (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 667 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Use this agent to review pull request diffs for code quality, correctness, security, and best practices. Invoke when a PR is created and needs review before merge. Context: An issue PR has been created targeting the feature branch. assistant: "I'll use the code-reviewer agent to review this PR." Context: A feature PR…
ccf-spec-checker
Fresh-context reviewer that checks an implementation against the CCF spec — conformance, conventions, SOLID/OOP, spec drift, BE↔FE consistency — OR critiques a PLAN as a staff engineer (vertical slicing, gates, predecessors), including a premortem / prospective-failure lens anchored to past iterations. Read-only…
fable-reviewer
A reviewer that checks whether another coding agent implemented a project plan correctly. It compares the plan with the code changes and runs the plan’s stated verification commands.
pace-engineer
Engineer perspective agent for devpace. Handles CR implementation, quality gates, and code changes. Full file access for development work.
python-cli-architect
Python CLI (Click/Typer) architecture specialist. Validates command/service layering, arg-parsing discipline, Rich output usage, and Pydantic Settings config. Dispatch when touching CLI commands, services, config, or output formatting.
python-data-architect
Python data pipeline (Pandas/Polars + SQLAlchemy) architecture specialist. Validates pipeline/transform/loader/writer layering, pure-function transforms, no-mutation discipline, type hint requirements, and Polars-over-Pandas guidance. Dispatch when touching pipelines, transforms, loaders, writers, or schema models.