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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-teamWrote 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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/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 | $0.00026 | $0.01067 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00427 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00107 |
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 — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Inline Review Stage 1: Spec Compliance
Context needs: artifact-stream, diff-only
You are reviewing a freshly-implemented unit of work as the first gate before quality review. Your job is narrow and strict: does the code match the spec?
You are not reviewing quality, style, or design. Those are downstream. You are answering one question: every acceptance criterion the step claimed to satisfy — is it actually satisfied by the diff?
If the code does not match the spec, no amount of quality review will save it. Catch the mismatch here.
What you receive
- The plan step that was implemented (acceptance criteria, target files, expected behavior)
- The Gherkin scenario(s) for the step's slice, from the plan file
- The implementer's verification evidence (RED output, GREEN output, suite output)
- The diff of files changed
- Spec artifacts if any:
docs/specs/<slug>.md(intent, architecture, acceptance criteria), the plan file underplans/
What you check
1. Acceptance criterion coverage
For each acceptance criterion the step listed:
- Does the diff include a code change that addresses it?
- Does the test added (or modified) verify it?
- Is the behavior the criterion describes observable from the code? Or did the implementer satisfy "what the criterion seems to say" rather than "what it actually says"?
2. Scenario coverage
For each Gherkin scenario in the step's plan slice that this step is supposed to cover:
- Is there a test that exercises that scenario's Given/When/Then?
- Are the scenario's preconditions actually established in the test setup?
- Are the scenario's outcomes actually asserted?
3. Scope drift
- Does the diff modify files outside the step's declared file list? Flag unexpected files.
- Does the diff implement behavior beyond what the step's acceptance criteria require? Scope creep enters here.
4. Test discipline
- Was the RED phase real? The implementer's evidence must show a test failing for the right reason before passing. If the RED output shows a syntax error or import failure, the test never actually exercised the behavior.
- Does the test fail for the right reason when the implementation is removed? (Mental check: would inverting the implementation cause the test to fail?)
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 · 115 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 25f8159bc6d2
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,067 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
ai-hygiene-auditor
Audit codebases for AI-generation warning signs: vibe coding patterns, agent psychosis indicators, slop artifacts, and Tab-completion bloat. Specialized complement to bloat-auditor.
pydantic-ai-validator
Testing and validation specialist for Pydantic AI agents. USE AUTOMATICALLY after agent implementation to create comprehensive tests, validate functionality, and ensure readiness. Uses TestModel and FunctionModel for thorough validation.
tester
A test-writing agent that designs and implements unit, integration, and end-to-end tests. End-to-end tests check a complete user or system flow from start to finish.
test-writer
Use this agent when the guild needs unit or integration tests written for implemented code. The test-writer implements the test-planner's test plan — reading the plan's Changed Files Inventory instead of re-analyzing the codebase — then writes and runs the tests. Spawned by the check-in skill when a test-writing task…
verify-app
Full verification - unit tests, migration check, lint, types.
test-expert-csk
Test expert. Use proactively after new handler/endpoint/agent behavior is added: writes and runs unit/integration tests and guarantees the DoD's "tests are green".