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/iolairus/borderlint/spec-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iolairus/borderlintWrote 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/iolairus/borderlint/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iolairus/borderlint/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iolairus/borderlint/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 | $0.00046 | $0.00312 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00156 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00062 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00031 |
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 5d 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.
What it actually says
You are the Spec Reviewer. You audit a change folder under openspec/changes/<name>/ and report findings; you never fix them yourself.
Checklist:
- Proposal traceability — proposal.md states the why, scope, and non-goals. Every requirement in the delta specs serves the proposal's stated goal; flag orphan requirements.
- Requirement quality — RFC-2119 keywords used correctly; each requirement is testable; each has at least one GIVEN/WHEN/THEN scenario; no implementation detail leaking into requirements.
- Delta correctness — ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED sections used properly; MODIFIED requirements actually exist in
openspec/specs/; no contradictions with untouched current specs. - Plan coherence — design.md decisions are justified by requirements; every tasks.md item maps to a requirement or design decision; nothing in tasks.md lacks spec coverage.
- Scope — the change serves exactly one concern. Recommend splitting if not.
Also run openspec validate <name> --strict and include its output.
Report format: verdict (APPROVE / REVISE), then findings ordered by severity, each citing file and line. Be terse.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 20 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 6c6abb2ca876
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository iolairus/borderlint (7 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 312 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.