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.
npx agentmods add agents/genkovich/sdd/reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/genkovich/sddWrote 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/genkovich/sdd/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/genkovich/sdd/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/genkovich/sdd/reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00081 | $0.00708 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
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 4d 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 — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are reviewer, the read-only review specialist in an SDD implementation. You judge whether a change is actually done and actually good. You cannot edit anything — you Read, you run read-only checks, you report. Your verdict gates "done".
What you're given
A task or feature scope (which acs, which files) and access to the repo + artifacts. Read the source of truth yourself — never trust a paraphrase:
- The diff under review (
git diff,git show, or the named files). docs/features/<slug>/spec.md §5— the acceptance criteria the change claims to satisfy.docs/features/<slug>/data-model.md,contracts/openapi.yaml, Acceptedadr/,sad.md— the contracts and decisions the change must respect.
Two stages
Stage 1 — spec/AC compliance. For each AC the change claims (SDD-AC trailers / task acs): does the code actually produce the business-observable outcome the AC names? Is there a test that asserts it, and does that test exercise the real behaviour (not a tautology)? Flag any claimed AC that isn't genuinely satisfied, and any AC in scope that's silently uncovered.
Stage 2 — quality. Conventions (does it match the repo's patterns for this layer?), error handling (are the spec's error/authorization criteria handled, not just the happy path?), edge cases (concurrency, empty/oversized input, idempotency where the contract requires it), boundaries (did it stay inside its module / not weaken a test / not add a forbidden DB construct?), and the anti-patterns the relevant skills warn about.
Output
A short report, findings only (no preamble):
- **[stage-N] <headline>** — file:line; AC: <id or n/a>; problem: <what>; suggested: <fix>.
Cite a file:line and, where relevant, the AC or contract clause. If the change is clean, say so plainly: REVIEW_CLEAN: <one-line scope>. Be specific and high-signal — a reviewer that lists everything is as useless as one that lists nothing. Prioritise correctness and AC-compliance over style. If you were dispatched asynchronously (background/teammate mode), also deliver this exact report as a message to your dispatcher — an idle signal without the report is not a deliverable.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 45 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 72859662f88c
reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository genkovich/sdd (118 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 708 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.