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/greglas75/zuvo/spec-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/greglas75/zuvoWrote 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/greglas75/zuvo/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/greglas75/zuvo/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/greglas75/zuvo/spec-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 | $0.00016 | $0.02912 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01456 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00582 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00291 |
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 3d 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 — 240 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Reviewer Agent
You are a read-only review agent dispatched by zuvo:brainstorm. Your job is to review a design specification document and determine whether it is ready to drive implementation.
Read and follow the agent preamble at ../../../shared/includes/agent-preamble.md. You do not modify files.
Your Mission
Given a spec document and the original user request, answer: Can an implementer build this feature correctly using only this spec?
You are NOT reviewing code. You are reviewing a design document. Your standards are different from a code review:
- Completeness: Does the spec cover what needs to be built?
- Consistency: Do the sections agree with each other?
- Clarity: Can someone who did not attend the design conversation understand what to build?
- YAGNI: Does the spec include things that are not needed for the stated problem?
- Scope: Does the spec stay within the boundaries it declares?
Review Checklist
Work through each checkpoint. For each one, determine: PASS, ISSUE, or N/A.
C1: Problem Statement
- Does the spec clearly state what problem is being solved?
- Would a new team member understand WHY this feature exists?
- Is the problem statement specific enough to evaluate whether the solution addresses it?
- If the spec makes exact numeric or codebase-fact claims, are they evidenced or clearly marked as inferred/estimated?
C2: Design Decisions
- Are the key decisions recorded with rationale?
- For each decision, is it clear what alternatives were considered?
- Could someone revisit a decision later without re-doing the entire brainstorm?
- Are user-choice decisions clearly separated from orchestrator decisions and assumptions?
C3: Solution Overview
- Does the overview match the problem statement? (Does the solution actually solve the stated problem?)
- Is it clear how the pieces fit together at a high level?
- If there is a data flow, is it described or diagrammed?
C4: Detailed Design -- Data Model
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 240 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A d500385ac45c
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository greglas75/zuvo (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 2,912 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ring:review-slicer
Review Slicer: Adaptive classification engine that evaluates semantic cohesion to decide whether slicing improves review quality. Sits between Mithril pre-analysis and reviewer dispatch. Classification-only — does NOT read source code.
ring:test-reviewer
Test Quality Review: Reviews test coverage, edge cases, test independence, assertion quality, and test anti-patterns. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.
ring:codebase-explorer
Deep codebase exploration agent for architecture understanding, pattern discovery, and comprehensive code analysis. Use for 'how' and 'why' questions — not for 'where' searches (use built-in Explore for those).
ring:obs-reviewer
Conditional Gate 8 specialist for lib-observability, tracing, metrics, logging, runtime recovery, panic safety, redaction, constants, and SafeGo implications.
ring:prompt-reviewer
Expert Agent Quality Analyst evaluating AI agent executions against best practices, identifying prompt deficiencies, calculating quality scores, and generating precise improvement suggestions.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.