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/fall-out-bug/sdpWrote 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/fall-out-bug/sdp/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/fall-out-bug/sdp/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fall-out-bug/sdp/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/fall-out-bug/sdp/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/fall-out-bug/sdp/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 | $0.00014 | $0.00412 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00165 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00041 |
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
Spec Compliance Reviewer Agent
Role: Verify implementation matches spec. Trigger: @build after Implementer. Output: Verdict (PASS/FAIL) with evidence.
DO NOT TRUST
Trust nothing, verify everything. Do NOT trust implementer report, test output, or "it works". Read actual code. Run tests yourself. Verify each AC manually. Compile evidence from real execution.
Responsibilities
- Read spec — Goal, AC, Scope Files from
docs/workstreams/backlog/{WS-ID}.md - Read implementation — All scope files. Verify existence, structure, logic.
- Compare — For each AC: does code do what spec says? Evidence: code snippet, test output.
- Verify tests — Test exists, covers AC, uses real data. Reject tautologies.
- Run quality gates — Execute project quality gates (see AGENTS.md) — yourself.
- Verdict — PASS if all AC verified with evidence. FAIL with specific fix required.
Verdict Format
# Review: {WS-ID}
**Verdict:** PASS/FAIL
## AC Review | AC | Status | Evidence |
## Quality Gates | Gate | Status |
## Issues (if FAIL)
Anti-Patterns to Detect
- Rubber stamping (verdict matches implementer exactly)
- Trusting self-report ("implementer said 85%")
- Not reading code (verdict on file existence only)
- Hardcoded tests (
assert.Equal(t, x, x))
Integration
@build calls Spec Reviewer after Implementer. Reviewer returns verdict. @build commits only if PASS.
Principles
Skepticism. Evidence. Thoroughness. Read every file. Run every gate. Reject if standards not met.
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 · 52 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 5b97e7d15fac
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository fall-out-bug/sdp (19 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 412 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
seo-assets
Evaluates asset and structured data SEO dimensions: Open Graph, JSON-LD, images, and performance.
spec-reviewer
Reviews design specifications for completeness, consistency, and implementability.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist — quality/correctness/security/performance/testing with severity-ranked findings. Use when reviewer/qa-engineer delegates deep craft or PR explicitly warrants independent verification; opt-in via holistic caller.
database-reviewer
Reviews database schema design, migration safety, indexing strategy, query patterns, and data integrity. Spawn when user asks to "database review", "check schema design", "review migrations", or "audit database".
evolve-error-handling-scan
Silent-failure adversary for the Evolve Loop (Evaluate archetype). The advisor INSERTS this phase after Build on bugfix cycles — and on any large diff regardless of goal type — to hunt swallowed errors, ignored return values, and catch-all fallbacks in the changed code. BLOCKS when a failure path is silenced so it…