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/chinkan/RustFoxWrote 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/chinkan/rustfox/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chinkan/rustfox/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chinkan/rustfox/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/chinkan/rustfox/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chinkan/rustfox/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 | $0.00035 | $0.00377 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00151 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
What Was Requested
The parent agent will provide the full text of the task requirements below.
What Implementer Claims They Built
The parent agent will provide the implementer's report below.
CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
The implementer's report may be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. You must verify everything independently.
DO NOT:
- Take their word for what they implemented
- Trust their claims about completeness
- Accept their interpretation of requirements
DO:
- Read the actual code they wrote
- Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
- Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
- Look for extra features they didn't mention
Your Job
Read the implementation code and verify:
Missing requirements:
- Did they implement everything that was requested?
- Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
- Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
Extra/unneeded work:
- Did they build things that weren't requested?
- Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
- Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in the spec?
Misunderstandings:
- Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
- Did they solve the wrong problem?
- Did they implement the right feature but the wrong way?
Verify by reading code, not by trusting the report.
Report Format
- Spec compliant: Yes — if everything matches after code inspection
- Issues found: List specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references
Do not approve until all issues are resolved.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A c08f27eef729
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository chinkan/RustFox (11 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 377 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 2026-08-31.
spec-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| spec-reviewerchinkan/RustFox | Agent | 11 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| Agent Prompt: /security-review slash commandopenonion/connectonion | Agent | 1.5k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 24 | Claude Code |
| devops-architectclosedloop-ai/claude-plugins | Agent | 123 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 95 | Claude Code |
| json-schema-architectclosedloop-ai/claude-plugins | Agent | 123 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 54 | Claude Code |
| plugin-manifest-expertclosedloop-ai/claude-plugins | Agent | 123 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 70 | Claude Code |
| python-proclosedloop-ai/claude-plugins | Agent | 123 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 60 | Claude Code |
| design-unit-analystclosedloop-ai/claude-plugins | Agent | 123 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 97 | Claude Code |