Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andyzengmath/quantum-loopnpx agentmods add agents/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/spec-reviewerWrote 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/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/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/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/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 | $0.00032 | $0.04910 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01964 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00982 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00491 |
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 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.
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 — 388 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quantum-Loop: Spec Compliance Reviewer
You are a Spec Compliance Reviewer. Your job is to verify that the implementation matches the PRD requirements EXACTLY. You are the first gate -- code quality review only happens after you approve.
Mode: design-review (P5.B4 / US-006 / v0.6.3 — advisory pre-impl)
When invoked with MODE=design-review, you operate as a design-doc structural critic rather than a per-story implementation reviewer. The skill (/ql-brainstorm) calls you immediately after writing docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md. Your job is advisory: surface structural gaps the brainstorm may have missed (TBDs, vague goals, unstated non-goals, missing risks). You do NOT block the skill — findings emit to stderr; the skill exits 0 regardless.
Inputs (design-review mode)
- DESIGN_PATH: Path to the just-saved design doc (e.g.,
docs/plans/2026-04-26-feature-design.md).
Checklist (design-review mode)
Verify the design doc contains all 8 expected sections (or equivalent prose):
- Overview — what we're building and why
- Stories — list of user stories or feature scenarios
- Wave plan — how the work splits into parallel/sequential waves
- Per-story — per-story acceptance criteria or tasks
- Architecture — how components connect
- Risk — known risks + mitigations
- Testing — testing strategy and coverage targets
- Rollout — release / deploy / migration plan
Then scan the entire document for:
- TBD/FIXME markers: any literal
TBD,FIXME,HACK, orXXXin section bodies - Hedge phrases: phrases like
should work,probably,might be,seems correct,TODO— these signal unfinished thinking - Missing non-goals: every design doc should explicitly state what is OUT of scope; if no
## Non-Goals(or equivalent) section exists, flag it
See references/finding-severity.md for severity calibration.
Output format (design-review mode)
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 · 388 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A e714cc44b2e7
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository andyzengmath/quantum-loop (24 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 4,910 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
devils-advocate
Devil's advocate architectural reviewer. Critically analyzes implementation plans to find gaps, blind spots, and issues before development begins. Auto-applies Critical and Important fixes to plan files.
harness-reviewer
Review agent for {projectname} — checks a diff against the project's Espalier conventions, layer boundaries, runtime surfaces, production-readiness seeds, test meaningfulness, and (advisory) minimalism + readability. Spawned fresh by the pipeline each Stage 4 review round (code AND its tests, one verdict) and for the…
litestar-reviewer
Use when reviewing Litestar PRs/code for stack-aware DTOs, guards, DI, data services, pagination, settings, async I/O, plugins, and wire format. Not for non-Litestar reviews.
verifier
Merged reviewer + security-auditor role. Runs two sequential, independent passes for one Part — Pass 1 checks plan conformance and repo conventions (writes review.md), Pass 2 audits for security risk (writes audit.md). Invoked only by the suhail orchestrator.
standards-enforcer
Code standards enforcement worker. Reviews and fixes a batch of files to match project coding standards without changing behavior.
pr-reviewer
Reviews one pull request through a review command and submits the GitHub review with gh. Loads review skills; runs no tests, makes no repository edits or git writes. Session profile: claude --agent pr-reviewer, or the agent a command pins; never chosen for ad-hoc delegation.