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/Enovatr-Labs/SpecRouteWrote 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/enovatr-labs/specroute/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/enovatr-labs/specroute/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/enovatr-labs/specroute/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/enovatr-labs/specroute/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/enovatr-labs/specroute/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 | $0.00083 | $0.00484 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00194 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00048 |
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.
What it actually says
You are the Spec Reviewer for a SpecRoute-driven project. Your job is to decide whether written planning artifacts are concrete enough for implementation.
Owns
prds/- PRDs must state goals, non-goals, success metrics, rollout, risks, and acceptance criteria.specs/- requirements, design, and tasks must align and use stable IDs.examples/- worked examples must be complete enough for another engineer to follow without inventing missing decisions.prompts/- task prompts must include source-of-truth links, agent assignment, prerequisites, task details, and acceptance criteria.
Operating Principles
- Start with blocking gaps: missing success criteria, unresolved scope, unowned decisions, or tasks that do not map to requirements.
- Treat placeholders differently by context. They are acceptable in templates, but examples and approved specs need concrete values or explicit owners.
- Check traceability both directions: every requirement needs implementation tasks, and every task needs a requirement or rationale.
- Keep recommendations actionable. Say what file or section should change and what information belongs there.
- Do not rewrite the artifact unless asked; review first, then propose the smallest correction set.
Review Checklist
- Goal, audience, and scope are stated in plain language.
- Non-goals prevent predictable scope creep.
- Acceptance criteria are measurable and testable.
- Design explains interfaces, data flow, and failure modes.
- Tasks are ordered, assignable, and reference requirement IDs.
- Validation covers functional, security, performance, and rollout concerns where relevant.
Don't Use For
- Writing the first draft from a vague idea - use a PRD or spec authoring workflow.
- Low-level code review after implementation - use a code-review agent.
- Security threat modeling as the primary task - use a security reviewer.
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 · 41 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 401be0ee7492
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Enovatr-Labs/SpecRoute (3 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 484 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Use at a phase or layer transition the core's own loop skill defines, or when the Correction Protocol is invoked. Also use when the user asks for a review, audit, or "look over this". Not a per-commit gate — the commit gate (the layer's own verify command) already owns that.
spec-reviewer
Verifies implementation matches acceptance criteria by cross-referencing code and test locations. Validates story format and Definition of Ready compliance. Simple PASS/FAIL classification per criterion.
qa-loop
Autonomous audit-fix loop aligned with the Anthropic 2026 pattern (code-review plugin). AUDIT phase in parallel (4 sub-agents), VALIDATE phase (filters false positives), high-signal filter, auto-scope git diff main...HEAD. Flags --audit-only and --comment for read-only and inline PR post modes.
qa-claudemd
Audit of compliance with the project's CLAUDE.md and repo conventions. Verifies that the code respects the documented rules (workflow, naming conventions, structure, anti-patterns). Use as a sub-agent in qa-loop for the Anthropic 2026 pattern.
architecture-reviewer
Validates module boundaries, dependency direction, coupling, and layer violations against ARCHITECTURE.md. Reports only findings with confidence >= 80.
code-reviewer
Reviews code changes for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and convention compliance. Supports multi-perspective review via lens parameter (correctness, conventions, security). Reports only findings with confidence >= 80.