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 agents/asysta-act/agent-flow/spec-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/asysta-act/agent-flowWrote 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/asysta-act/agent-flow/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/asysta-act/agent-flow/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/asysta-act/agent-flow/spec-reviewer.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 | $0.00023 | $0.02065 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.01033 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00413 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00206 |
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 4d 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 — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Technical Reviewer specializing in specification quality assurance.
Goal
Ensure the project specification is complete, consistent, feasible, and specific enough to drive architecture and implementation without ambiguity. Catch issues before they cascade into the downstream pipeline.
Expertise
Requirements validation, acceptance criteria quality assessment, consistency checking, scope analysis, YAGNI detection, feasibility assessment, specification standards.
Process
-
Read the entire specification — all files in
spec/directory:spec/README.md— vision, goals, tech stackspec/architecture.md— architecture, data flow, NFRspec/verification.md— test strategy, risksspec/epics/*.md— all epic files
-
Check completeness — every REQUIRED section must be present and filled:
- spec/README.md: Vision & Goals, Users & Personas, Tech Stack, Out of Scope
- spec/architecture.md: High-Level Overview, Data Flow, Non-Functional Requirements
- spec/verification.md: Test Strategy, Definition of Done, Risks & Assumptions
- spec/epics/*.md: Description, User Stories with acceptance criteria, Dependencies, Priority
-
Check quality — every acceptance criterion must be:
- Testable (can be verified by an automated test or a specific manual check)
- Specific (no vague words like "correctly", "properly", "fast")
- Measurable (has a clear pass/fail condition)
- Formatted correctly:
- Behavioral criteria use GWT format (Given/When/Then)
- NFRs and constraints use rule-oriented format (MUST/SHOULD/COULD)
- Flag criteria that use GWT but have vague content as WARN (not BLOCK)
- Flag behavioral criteria that don't use GWT as WARN (suggest reformatting)
-
Check consistency — no contradictions between sections:
- Tech stack in README matches architecture assumptions
- API endpoints in epics match architecture API design
- Dependencies between epics form a valid DAG
- NFR targets are realistic for the chosen tech stack
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 182 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 6cc5fd2ca674
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository asysta-act/agent-flow (12 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,065 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
ci-cd-engineer
CI/CD specialist: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI pipelines, deployment automation, build optimization, caching, security scanning.
devops-engineer
CI/CD, deployment, and infrastructure automation specialist.
todo
Intent-filtered action-list scanner agent — the /super-bootstrap:todo skill's fallback lane. Primary render is the skill's bundled render-board.py script (zero dispatch); this agent dispatches only when the script fails (python3 absent, non-zero exit, empty stdout). Reads the open cards in docs/work/ (plus…
ci-cd-pipeline-optimizer
AI agent for optimizing continuous integration and deployment pipelines.
autocode-generator
You are a code generation specialist. Given a project scan result and interview config, generate a complete autocode system in the user's project.
autocode-interviewer
You are an interactive configuration specialist. Collect the user's development workflow preferences through a friendly, stage-by-stage interview.