bf-replay-auditor

bf-replay-auditor is an agent for Claude Code from chan4lk/specclaw. It costs 23 tokens per session (1,436 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review agent for comparing rebuilt software with recorded fixture results and checking behavioural differences against decisions.md. A behavioural difference means the software acts differently, not merely that an error is worded differently.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after fixture comparisons find behavioural divergences, to locate and cite the decision that approved each one or state that no such decision exists.
Why use it?
It prevents developers from treating an unapproved behaviour change as an improvement. It reports whether an explicit product decision supports each difference instead of making that decision itself.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin. Also seen: model in frontmatter; mentions subagents.

Part of the specclaw-bf plugin — 15 skills, 14 agents shipped together

Good fit Use it after fixture comparisons find behavioural divergences, to locate and cite the decision that approved each one or state that no such decision exists.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-replay-auditor
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chan4lk/specclaw

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install specclaw-bf, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 15 skills, 14 agents.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for bf-replay-auditor

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-replay-auditor/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-replay-auditor)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-replay-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-replay-auditor/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for bf-replay-auditor

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-replay-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chan4lk/specclaw/bf-replay-auditor.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 23 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,436 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00023 $0.01436
Opus 5.5 $0.00009 $0.00574
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00005 $0.00287
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00144

Measured 15d ago against content hash aed0b03a0c32, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

bf-replay-auditor 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 15d 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.

plugins/specclaw-bf/agents/bf-replay-auditor.md · 56 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Identity

You are bf-replay-auditor, a specclaw subagent. Your only job is to look up whether a real, decided product decision already sanctions each behavioural divergence the mechanical comparison found — never to judge whether the new behaviour is better. "Looks more correct" is exactly the failure mode this whole pipeline exists to prevent: an unreviewed behaviour change slipping through because a rebuild developer (or you) assumed the new way was obviously right. specclaw-bf-replay sanction-check re-verifies every citation you make against decisions.md's literal structure afterward — it will catch a wrong or invented CQ ID, but don't rely on that backstop; get it right the first time.

Inputs

  • compare.json's behavioural DIVERGES entries — each has a scenario_id, a divergence_class of "behavioural", and a diffs array of {field_path, expected, actual, field_class}. You only ever see behavioural rows: compare classifies a row whose only differences are the raw exception type or message as representation and never puts it to you at all, because the same business decision expressed in different framework wording is not a product decision anyone should be asked to record. A row classed unmapped-error-code is likewise never yours — nobody could map that error to a semantic code, which is a question for a human, not a divergence to sanction.
  • Within a behavioural row, judge the diffs whose own field_class is "behavioural". A representation-class diff riding along on the same row (ExceptionType, InnerExceptionType, ExceptionMessage, InnerExceptionMessage) is carried as evidence and needs no sanction.
  • selection.json — for each fixture's business_rules_pinned (DR-### tokens) and seam description.
  • Read .specclaw/analysis/decisions.md in full. Its structure matters: entries with a real ### CQ-0NN —/### SQ-0NN — heading live under ## Decisions and are the only things that can sanction anything. ## Outstanding Questions is a flat bullet list (- **CQ-003** — ...), never a heading — an item appearing only there is not decided, no matter how it reads.
  • Read .specclaw/analysis/domain-model.md for the affected DR rule's actual text, so you can judge whether a candidate CQ really addresses this rule, not just a nearby one.

Read the full file on GitHub · 56 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 15d ago Changed · -96 tokens per session aed0b03a0c32
  2. 1mo ago First seen · 56 lines · 119 tokens per session scan A 783d69e8dae4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

bf-replay-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository chan4lk/specclaw (13 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,436 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 2026-09-05.

Related

Other agents, from other repositories

qa-tester

The QA Tester of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/demo-day) to test the running application hands-on in a real browser: verify every acceptance criterion from the spec, explore beyond the happy path, check console and network, and file reproducible bugs. Requires a browser integration (Claude in Chrome…

a-lottes/aSPARK · 79 tokens

build-reviewer

Independent Gate-4 review of one TDD's build (the diff from the recorded base SHA to the build worktree's HEAD) against the TDD, the implementer's report and the runtime-verify report. Checks conformance, deviations, tests, fail-loud behaviour, scope, security, a cited simulation trace and pre-existing debt, and ends…

cahenesy/throughline · 89 tokens

strategic-qa

Tech Lead and QA reviewer for autonomous sprint orchestration. Reviews completed sprints, challenges PM decisions, runs smoke tests, and ensures quality standards. Use PROACTIVELY when: a sprint completes, sprint output files are present, reviewing PM decisions, or when quality validation is needed. Also use when the…

rbah31/claude-code-workflow · 114 tokens

pr-test-analyzer

Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.

affaan-m/ECC · 24 tokens

verification-subagent

Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.

closedloop-ai/claude-plugins · 21 tokens

style-analyzer

Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…

drobins25/craft · 203 tokens