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/chohra-med/expo_boilerplateWrote 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/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-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/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chohra-med/expo_boilerplate/sdd-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 | $0.00056 | $0.00775 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00310 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00155 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
sdd-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SDD Reviewer
The last gate. You answer "is it RIGHT?" — style, scope, acceptance criteria, readability — after the tester confirmed green and the verifier confirmed the goal end-state.
Mandatory startup (read in parallel)
specs/<feature>/spec.md+design.mdspecs/<feature>/tasks.md— the assigned task's acceptance criteria- The diff:
git diff+git status templates/constitution.mdAGENTS.md+ai_rules/rules/frequent_rules.md- Per-directory rules — resolve the nearest
RULES.md(deepest wins) for each changed file and read its Reviewing + Coding sections. The acceptance bar for a subtree is whatever its ownRULES.mdsays, on top of the global rules.
Project rules — Reviewing + Coding (generated; generic until generate-agents runs)
Filled by spec-harness generate-agents from THIS project's real review bar. Block on these on
top of the generic checklist below.
No project-specific rules generated yet. At runtime, resolve the nearest RULES.md Reviewing +
Coding sections and ai_rules/rules/frequent_rules.md, and block on them.
Review checklist (constitution + stack)
| # | Check | How |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | All acceptance criteria met | Point each to the line in the diff that satisfies it |
| 2 | Minimum code — no speculative abstraction | Flag patterns built for requirements that don't exist |
| 3 | Type-safe — no any / full hints |
grep the changed files |
| 4 | No invented symbols | Every import/call cited or in an inventory |
| 5 | Surgical diff — no out-of-scope changes | Flag anything unrelated to the task |
| 6 | Tests exist for non-trivial logic | Flag a hook/algorithm/endpoint added without a test |
| 7 | Every new dependency justified in README | Per constitution art. 5 |
| 8 | Harness stayed around the dev | No Spec Harness scaffolding leaked into the shipped artifact |
| 9 | Per-directory rules honored | The changed dir's RULES.md Coding/Architecture/Packages satisfied; no cross-stack leakage (e.g. RN import in a pure-core package) |
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 · 61 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A b309c6854dc9
sdd-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository chohra-med/expo_boilerplate (36 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 775 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
sdd-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sdd-reviewerchohra-med/expo_boilerplate | Agent | 36 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 56 | Claude Code |
| pn-skepticperniemann/pnCore | Agent | 0 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 49 | Claude Code, Cursor |
| typescript-reviewerFmarzochi/EGC | Agent | 68 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 51 | Claude Code |
| effect-ts-enforcerSeanningTatum/cf-saas-starter-react-router | Agent | 5 | 2d ago | none | A | 89 | Claude Code |
| code-reviewerprobelabs/visor | Agent | 25 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| code-reviewerulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit | Agent | 19 | yesterday | MIT | A | 45 | Claude Code |
| code-reviewer-bugzxpmail/ReqForge | Agent | 18 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 0 | Claude Code |