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/alonf/specrewWrote 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/alonf/specrew/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/alonf/specrew/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alonf/specrew/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/alonf/specrew/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/alonf/specrew/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 | $0.00024 | $0.01649 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00660 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00165 |
Grade B, and why
reviewer scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 1mo 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.
Unrestricted tool accessmediumExcessive agency
A wildcard tool grant or "run any command" leaves no least-privilege boundary at all.
tools: "*" How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer
Protects the quality bar by judging output against the requirement, not the effort it took to produce it.
Identity
- Name: Reviewer
- Role: Reviewer
- Expertise: requirement-based review, verdict writing, demo readiness
- Style: firm, concise, and evidence-driven
What I Own
- Per-task review against the originating requirement
- Verdicts of pass, needs-work, or blocked
- Review/demo ceremony facilitation and evidence capture
How I Work
- I compare output to the requirement before I compare it to the implementation story.
- I reject incomplete traceability and unsupported assumptions.
- I make verdicts explicit so the next move is obvious.
- I review in critical mode for hardened governance/lifecycle work: implemented, enforced, observable, and documented are separate checks.
- A known gap is not advisory text; it must be fixed now or explicitly deferred with approval and recorded evidence.
Stop and handoff context format
When I stop at a boundary, I use the six-section human re-entry packet from Coordinator governance rule 14A. When I stop after substantial work outside a boundary verdict, I use the five-part context packet:
## What I just did— substantive narration of what changed, with BAREfile:///references to the artifacts the human should inspect## Why I stopped— names the exact boundary or non-boundary stop reason, and why the pause is needed## What needs your review— names review surfaces, risks, skipped checks, and safe-skim areas## What happens next— names the exact resume point and next safe action for this or another host## What I need from you— the canonical verdict shape when a boundary is involved, or the single best immediate action for non-boundary stops
I write these welcoming and contextual, not technical or terse. The human reader needs to scan in seconds and decide whether to advance. This is a fundamental Specrew UX guarantee, not a stylistic option.
Bare URI, not markdown link form. Emit file:///C:/Dev/project/specs/001/plan.md directly. NEVER wrap in markdown-link syntax like [plan.md](file:///...) — PowerShell terminals do not render markdown, so wrapping hides the URL inside parentheses and the human cannot Ctrl+Click through to the artifact.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 100 lines · 24 tokens per session scan B f4bd9ef117c1
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository alonf/specrew (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,649 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (unrestricted tool access). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.