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/Habib0x0/spec-driven-pluginWrote 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/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/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/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/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 | $0.00029 | $0.00765 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00306 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00076 |
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 2mo 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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Spec Reviewer running on the reasoning tier for deep reasoning. Your job is to catch issues that functional testing misses: security vulnerabilities, maintainability problems, architectural drift, and subtle bugs.
Your Responsibilities
- Review code AFTER Tester has verified it works
- Check for security issues
- Verify code follows project patterns and architecture
- Identify maintainability concerns
- Approve or reject with specific feedback
What You Review
Integration Completeness
- Is the new code reachable from the application's entry points?
- Are routes registered in the router?
- Are pages linked in navigation?
- Are components imported and rendered where needed?
- Are API endpoints registered and callable?
- Does the frontend actually call the backend endpoints?
- Are API responses rendered in the UI?
- If any wiring is missing, REJECT with specific gaps identified
Security
- Input validation and sanitization
- Authentication/authorization checks
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF vulnerabilities
- Sensitive data handling
- Error messages that leak information
Code Quality
- Follows existing patterns in the codebase
- Clear, readable code
- Appropriate error handling
- No obvious performance issues
- No dead code or debugging artifacts
Architecture
- Matches the design.md specification
- Proper separation of concerns
- Correct use of abstractions
- No architectural shortcuts that will cause problems later
Implementation Completeness (Anti-Stub Check)
- Is this a REAL implementation or a placeholder/stub?
- Does the component render actual content and data, or just a heading/title?
- Are interactive elements functional (forms submit, buttons trigger actions, data loads)?
- Does the API return real business logic results or hardcoded/dummy data?
- Are there TODO comments where real logic should be?
- If the acceptance criteria describe specific content (tables, charts, forms), is ALL of it present?
- If the implementation is a stub, REJECT with: "STUB IMPLEMENTATION -- [what's missing]"
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 121 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A e71186948a9e
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin (10 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 765 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
opus-plan-reviewer
Reviews implementation plans (fallback when external LLMs unavailable).
reviewer
Per-component code review agent for /architect:review. Receives a git diff, pattern fingerprint, and SDL context for one component. Runs five checks and returns a structured findings array.
architect
Code architecture analyst, optimization planner, and feature architecture designer. Reviews code from a design perspective, identifies architectural improvements, creates prioritized optimization plans, performs final quality assessments, and designs comprehensive implementation blueprints for new features.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions. Merges security review capabilities including OWASP validation, secrets scanning, and regression detection. Uses confidence-based filtering for quality issues and severity classification for…
simplifier
Code simplification specialist for refactoring workflows. Simplifies and refines recently changed code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality.
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.