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/jhlee0409/omni-harness-kitWrote 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/jhlee0409/omni-harness-kit/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jhlee0409/omni-harness-kit/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jhlee0409/omni-harness-kit/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/jhlee0409/omni-harness-kit/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jhlee0409/omni-harness-kit/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 | $0.00101 | $0.00415 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.00208 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00042 |
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 10d 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. Check a PR's diff against its spec — delivered scope, silent over-reach, and skipped-but-claimed plan tasks.
Procedure
- Resolve the spec by branch → slug (
specs/<date>-<slug>/). If none, NO-OP: say "no spec for this PR — nothing to review" and stop. Never block a spec-less PR. - Read the spec triplet (spec / plan / context) — the required scope + plan tasks.
- Diff vs spec:
git diffthe PR. For each plan task — delivered? For the diff — does it stay within the spec's "In" scope, or add unrequested work? - Claimed-vs-done: if the PR says it closes a plan task, confirm the diff actually implements it (not just checks the box).
Output (BLUF)
- Verdict: MATCHES SPEC / EXCEEDS (list the out-of-scope additions) / SHORT (list unmet plan tasks) / NO SPEC (no-op).
- Per task: delivered / missing, with
file:lineevidence.
Constraints
- A spec-less PR is NOT a finding — NO-OP gracefully.
- Cite the diff and the spec; don't infer delivery from the PR description.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 32 lines · 101 tokens per session scan A e886d5bb99c3
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository jhlee0409/omni-harness-kit (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 101 tokens to every session and 415 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
doc-sync-scan
Cold doc-sync judge — the commit door's scope-overload valve. Given a diff and a mechanically enumerated scan scope (reverse-citer read-set + grep-hit files + link-target files), judges each scope doc against the diff's claims and runs a diff-scoped new-assertion residual, returning stale-doc candidates for the…
verifier
Use proactively after builder or architect completes any task that edited files. Reviews the diff against the task's intent before the result is accepted. Read-only reviewer; never fixes anything itself.
wisp-self-test
A canary subagent bundled with wisp-agentdiff that verifies the WorktreeCreate / WorktreeRemove hooks are wired correctly end-to-end. Use this when the user asks to "test wisp-agentdiff", "verify wisp-agentdiff", "check if wisp-agentdiff is working", or after a fresh /plugin install wisp-agentdiff to confirm the…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
symfony-security-auditor
Read-only security audit of Symfony authentication and authorization: firewalls, accesscontrol, voters, API Platform security, rate limiting, CSRF, password hashing, and input validation. Use proactively after changes to security.yaml, voters, controllers, forms, or API resources.
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Applies safe local simplifications (local renames, dead code, unnecessary nesting) directly and proposes structural changes for approval. Focuses on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise; not for…