Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/plugin install guideline-reviewersWrote 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/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/api-guideline-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/api-guideline-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/api-guideline-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/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/api-guideline-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins/api-guideline-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 | $0.00098 | $0.05427 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.02171 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.01085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00543 |
Grade A, and why
api-guideline-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 1mo 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 — 276 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
API Guideline Review
Review OpenAPI specification files for compliance with REST API and IAM permission-naming guidelines.
The review runs in three passes. Pass 0 is a deterministic Spectral lint; Passes 1 and 2 are the LLM review, scoped to what a linter cannot express. Pass 0 is best-effort: with no Spectral CLI on the machine the run proceeds exactly as it did before Spectral existed, and says so.
Before Starting
Load every guideline file listed below before reviewing — never skip one of these. All paths relative to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}:
REST API Guidelines (references/api-guidelines/rest-api-guidelines/):
Introduction.md— RFC 2119 keywords (MUST/SHOULD/MAY)General Structure.md— API types, URL mappingOpenAPI.md— Required template elements, version consistencyAPI Versioning.md— Semantic versioning, deprecationAuthentication.md— OAuth2 client credentials onlyStandard Methods.md— CRUD operations, HTTP methodsCustom Methods.md— Custom method definitionsConventions.md— Naming conventions, HTTP response codesCommon Datatypes.md— Field naming for timestamps, timezones, etc.Common Schemas.md— Error envelopes, modification infoDesign Patterns.md— Pagination, filtering, bulk operationsFiltering And Sorting.md— Query parametersSwagger Documentation.md— Documentation completeness, mandatory error responses
Permission Guidelines (references/api-guidelines/permission-guidelines/):
Introduction.md— IAM permission format{service}:{resource}:{action}General Mapping.md— URL-to-IAM mapping rules
Template: references/api-guidelines/template/openapi-template.yaml
Spectral ruleset: references/api-guidelines/spectral/ruleset.yaml
Review Workflow
Pass 0: Deterministic lint (Spectral)
Run this before Pass 1. It is the only pass that produces machine-checked findings, and its findings are authoritative for the rules it covers.
Where it runs. Partition the spec files by their lint directory, and run steps 1–4 once per partition, in that directory. A spec's lint directory is the nearest directory at or above it, up to its repository's git top level (git -C "<the spec's directory>" rev-parse --show-toplevel), that holds a Spectral ruleset of its own — .spectral.yaml, .spectral.yml or .spectral.json — or a package.json that declares @stoplight/spectral-cli. A spec with no such ancestor belongs to its repository's top-level partition, linted from the top level itself; a spec in no repository has no top level to bound the walk, so the walk stops at the spec's own directory, and the spec is linted from there, with any other spec in that directory. A monorepo package that keeps its own ruleset or its own Spectral CLI is linted from that package, specs from two such packages are each linted from their own package, and a repository that keeps them at its top level from there, as it is when you are started in it. Your Bash tool starts every call in the session's directory, which need not be the spec's repository, and a cd does not persist between calls — while npx --no-install resolves the CLI from the directory it runs in, and from any other finds none, or the wrong one — so run each probe and each lint below as one subshell, (builtin cd "<the partition's directory>" >/dev/null && …), inside a single Bash call, naming the partition's specs by absolute path — builtin cd, its output discarded, since your Bash tool's shell carries the user's shell functions and aliases, and a cd of theirs would otherwise run in its place and could print into what you read. Merge what the partitions report into one set of findings, each keyed by its spec file.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed c2be44848b2b
- 1mo ago Changed · +22 lines 915db1fc78af
- 2mo ago First seen · 254 lines · 98 tokens per session scan A d9872cc149cb
api-guideline-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ihudak/ihudak-claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 5,427 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
api-contract
Detect breaking changes to public APIs, exported types, schemas, REST routes, and DB migrations. Flags consumer-impacting changes that need coordination.
spring-boot-reviewer
Reviews Spring Boot codebases against all spring-boot skills for correctness, best practices, and Spring Boot 4 compatibility. Use when reviewing Spring Boot projects, validating implementations, or user mentions "review my Spring Boot code", "check Spring best practices", "Spring Boot review", "validate Spring…
api-design-reviewer
Use this agent for comprehensive API design audits of endpoints, routes, error handling, or API architecture. Examples: Context: User has built a REST API and wants it reviewed. user: "Review my API against REST best practices" assistant: "I'll use the api-design-reviewer agent to audit the API." API review involves…
backend-reviewer
Backend design reviewer subagent. Auto-loads the backend skill; applies any .review-pro/ stack signals; returns structured findings.
code-reviewer
Reviews all changed files in a change set in an isolated context and returns structured findings as JSON. Spawned by the /review-gate:review orchestrator. Not for general questions.
code-resolver
Re-checks prior findings after a code fix. Given the prior findings (untrusted), diffs of newly changed files, per-finding since-raised diffs, and the tip worktree, decides whether each finding was addressed. Not for general questions.