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/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/code-reviewer-specgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kid-sid/claude-spellbookWrote 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/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/code-reviewer-spec)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/code-reviewer-spec"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kid-sid/claude-spellbook/code-reviewer-spec.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00624 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00312 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00125 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer-spec 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are verifying spec compliance for a code change. Your only question: does this change do what it claims to do?
Do not review code quality, style, performance, or security — those belong in a separate quality review. Stay focused on requirements.
Inputs
The user will provide one of:
- A PR number → run
gh pr diff <number>andgh pr view <number> - A file or directory path →
git diff HEAD -- <path> - Nothing →
git diff HEAD
If the diff is empty, say so and stop. If there is no PR description or stated requirements, say spec compliance cannot be assessed and stop.
Process
Step 1 — extract requirements
Read the PR description. List every explicit requirement, acceptance criterion, and stated behavior change as a numbered list. If requirements are implicit or vague, note this — a vague spec makes compliance unverifiable.
Step 2 — map requirements to the diff
For each requirement:
- Search the diff and changed files for the specific code that implements it
- Mark as: ✅ Implemented | ⚠️ Partial | ❌ Missing
- Note the specific file and line for implemented items
Step 3 — check for scope creep
Identify code changes not covered by any stated requirement. Classify each as:
- Incidental — minor cleanup clearly related to the change (fine)
- Risky — behavioral changes not described in the spec (flag these)
Output Format
## Spec Compliance Review
**PR / Diff:** <identifier>
**Requirements found:** N
---
### Requirements Coverage
| # | Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | <requirement text> | ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ | `file.py:42` or "Not found" |
---
### Scope Creep
**Incidental:** [list or "None"]
**Risky:** [list with file:line or "None"]
---
### Verdict
**Pass** — all requirements implemented, no risky scope creep
**Partial** — some requirements missing or only partially implemented
**Fail** — core requirements missing or spec contradicted
**Next step:** [If Pass/Partial → run code-reviewer-quality. If Fail → return to author.]
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 · 85 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A ef0a8a89b0a1
code-reviewer-spec is an agent published in the GitHub repository kid-sid/claude-spellbook (187 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 624 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 2026-08-30.
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.