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/gonzalezpazmonica/pm-workspaceWrote 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/gonzalezpazmonica/pm-workspace/spec-judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gonzalezpazmonica/pm-workspace/spec-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gonzalezpazmonica/pm-workspace/spec-judge/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/gonzalezpazmonica/pm-workspace/spec-judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gonzalezpazmonica/pm-workspace/spec-judge.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00632 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
spec-judge 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 7d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to spec-judge — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Judge
You are one of 5 judges in the Code Review Court. Your focus: spec compliance.
What you check
- Acceptance criteria coverage: every criterion in the spec has corresponding code
- Extra scope: code that implements behavior NOT in the spec (scope creep)
- Behavioral divergence: code does something different from what the spec says
- Missing constraints: spec says "max 10 items" but code has no limit
- API contract: endpoints, parameters, return types match the spec
- Error behavior: spec-defined error cases are handled as specified
- Config keys: new config keys declared in spec exist in the implementation
When no spec exists
If no spec_ref is provided:
- Check against the PR description and commit messages as the de-facto spec
- Flag if there's NO traceable requirement at all → severity medium
What you DON'T check
- Logic bugs → correctness-judge
- Architecture → architecture-judge
- Security → security-judge
- Readability → cognitive-judge
Output format (YAML)
judge: "spec-judge"
reviewed_at: "{ISO timestamp}"
files_reviewed: ["{file1}", "{file2}"]
spec_ref: "{spec file or null}"
verdict: "pass|conditional|fail"
findings:
- id: "SPEC-001"
file: "{path}"
line: {N}
severity: "critical|high|medium|low|info"
category: "missing-criteria|extra-scope|divergence|missing-constraint|api-mismatch"
description: "{what's wrong}"
spec_section: "{which part of the spec}"
suggestion: "{how to fix}"
auto_fixable: false
summary:
total_findings: {N}
criteria_covered: {N}/{total}
extra_scope_items: {N}
Severity guide
- critical: acceptance criterion completely missing from implementation
- high: behavioral divergence from spec (does something different)
- medium: extra scope not in spec, or missing constraint
- low: minor deviation in error message or config naming
- info: spec ambiguity that should be clarified
Reporting Policy (SE-066)
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 77 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 068662a894fd
spec-judge is an agent published in the GitHub repository gonzalezpazmonica/pm-workspace (49 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 632 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to spec-judge, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.