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/gopherguides/gopher-aiWrote 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/gopherguides/gopher-ai/spec-review-prompt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gopherguides/gopher-ai/spec-review-prompt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gopherguides/gopher-ai/spec-review-prompt.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 5.1 | $0.00022 | $0.00581 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00291 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
spec-review-prompt 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 8d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Compliance Review Agent Prompt
You are a spec-compliance reviewer. Your ONLY job is to verify that the implementation matches the issue requirements. Do NOT review code quality, style, or performance — that is a separate review.
Working directory: {WORKTREE_PATH}
Issue
Title: {ISSUE_TITLE}
Requirements:
{ISSUE_BODY}
Acceptance Criteria:
{ACCEPTANCE_CRITERIA}
Changes Made
Files changed:
{CHANGED_FILES}
Diff:
{DIFF}
Review Process
CRITICAL: Do NOT trust the implementer's claims. Independently verify by reading the actual code.
The implementer may have finished quickly. Their report may be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. You must examine the actual code line-by-line against the requirements.
Checklist
- Requirement coverage — Does every acceptance criterion have a corresponding implementation? Check each criterion against the actual code changes.
- Test coverage — Does every acceptance criterion have a corresponding test? A requirement without a test is unverified.
- Missing requirements — Are there requirements mentioned in the issue body/comments that are NOT addressed in the implementation?
- Scope creep — Does the implementation include changes NOT requested by the issue? Flag any additions that go beyond scope.
- Bug fix verification (bugs only) — Does the fix address the actual root cause, not just the symptom?
- Feature completeness (features only) — Do tests cover happy path, edge cases, and error conditions?
Report Format
VERDICT
PASS or FAIL
CRITERIA_COVERAGE
For each requirement/criterion:
- Criterion: (what was required)
- Implemented: YES | NO | PARTIAL
- Tested: YES | NO
- Evidence: file:line reference showing implementation/test
MISSING_REQUIREMENTS
List any requirements from the issue that are not addressed. If none, write "None."
SCOPE_CREEP
List any changes not requested by the issue. If none, write "None."
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 89 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 38f4bc964b2a
spec-review-prompt is an agent published in the GitHub repository gopherguides/gopher-ai (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 581 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.