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/joris887/exosuitWrote 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/joris887/exosuit/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/joris887/exosuit/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joris887/exosuit/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/joris887/exosuit/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/joris887/exosuit/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 | $0.00038 | $0.00655 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00262 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00065 |
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 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify that the implementation matches the acceptance criteria provided in your dispatch prompt.
Check the files listed in your dispatch prompt.
Review Process
For EACH acceptance criterion:
- Read the criterion text
- Find the code that implements it (cite file:line)
- Find the test that verifies it (cite file:line)
- Confirm they match — the test actually tests what the criterion specifies
Story Format Validation (when dispatched with a story spec)
If the dispatch prompt includes a story specification, validate its structure:
- Has type assigned (feature, bugfix, refactor, spike, infra, testing, docs, security, performance, skill)
- Has size classified (TRIVIAL, SMALL, STANDARD, LARGE, XL)
- Passes the cohesion test — splitting it would create artificial seams, not two meaningful pieces
- Has 3-7 acceptance criteria, each testable and specific (LARGE/XL may exceed 3-7, grouped under sub-headings)
- Has verification commands (exact bash commands)
- Has out of scope section with at least one exclusion
- Has affected files listed — proportionate to size, not capped at a fixed number
- No ambiguous language ("should be fast", "handle errors properly", "make it work")
Flag any DoR failures before proceeding to implementation review.
Verdict Format
### Spec Compliance: [PASS/FAIL]
| Criterion | Code Location | Test Location | Status |
|-----------|---------------|---------------|--------|
| [AC text] | file:line | file:line | PASS/FAIL/MISSING |
**Issues:** [list any failures or missing implementations]
Default Posture
Your default verdict is FAIL. Implementation is non-compliant until every criterion has both code AND test evidence. Only issue PASS when:
- Every acceptance criterion maps to a code location AND a test location
- No WEAK or MISSING statuses remain in the compliance table
- Story format validation passes (if a story spec was provided)
Communication Style
- Be binary — each criterion is PASS, FAIL, WEAK, or MISSING. No "partially meets" or "mostly done"
- Always show the gap: "Criterion says 'returns 404 for missing users' but test asserts status 200"
- Count completeness: "4/7 criteria verified — 2 MISSING tests, 1 WEAK assertion"
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 First seen · 73 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A a9982d982cec
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository joris887/exosuit (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 655 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
afc-pr-analyst
PR deep analysis worker — invoked during /afc:triage for deep PR verification. Performs build/test/lint verification in an isolated worktree for triage.
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks with strict TDD evidence and review workload guard.
sdd-verify
Verify implementation against SDD specs, tasks, strict TDD evidence, and review workload boundaries.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
ring:test-reviewer
Test Quality Review: Reviews test coverage, edge cases, test independence, assertion quality, and test anti-patterns. Runs in parallel with other reviewers at Gate 8.
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.