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/habib0x0/spec-driven-plugin/spec-reviewergit 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.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00765 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00382 |
| Sonnet 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 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 — 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.
- 4d 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 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 765 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
section-writer
Generates self-contained implementation section content. Outputs raw markdown. Used by /deep-plan for parallel section generation.
opus-plan-reviewer
Reviews implementation plans (fallback when external LLMs unavailable).
scaffolder
Creates repos and bootstraps projects for architecture components. Use after generating a blueprint with /architect:blueprint.
data-model-generator
Takes shared types and database definitions from a blueprint manifest and generates real ORM schemas (Prisma, SQLAlchemy, Mongoose, Drizzle) with migrations.
monitoring-setup
Generate observability stack config, metrics/tracing/logging code, dashboards, alerts, and SLO templates.
cicd-deployer
Takes the DevOps blueprint from an architecture and configures real CI/CD pipelines in GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, or GitLab CI. Sets up workflows, environment secrets, and deployment configs.