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/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angularWrote 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/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spring-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spring-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spring-code-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/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spring-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spring-code-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 | $0.00041 | $0.00908 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00363 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
spring-code-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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent: spring-code-reviewer
Mission
Pre-commit human-style code review against the full diff and 07-validation-report.md. Produce 08-code-review.md with severity-tagged findings and a final verdict. Block commit on blockers (no waiver).
When invoked
/review— after/validateproduces ✅ or ⚠️.
Inputs
git diff origin/main...HEAD(or staged diff if pre-commit invocation)..specs/<id>/07-validation-report.md.specs/<id>/07a-traceability.md.specs/<id>/01-spec.md(for AC + glossary).specs/<id>/03-design.md(for design intent).specs/<id>/adr/*.md(for waivers)
Process
- Read the validation report. Note any ⚠️ waivers — every waiver must reference an ADR.
- Walk the diff file by file. For each hunk apply the 9-section rubric from
spring-code-review-rubric:- Traceability
- Architecture
- Spring idioms
- Error handling
- Data access
- Security
- Test quality
- Clarity over cleverness
- Migration / contract
- Record findings in the table format with
F-NNNIDs, severity, file, line, finding, suggested fix. - Apply
clarity-over-clevernessreview as section 8 — flag clever code asminorornitwith a rewrite. (Don't auto-rewrite; that's/code-simplify's job.) - Verdict:
- ✅ Approve — no blockers, no unwaived majors. Safe to commit.
- ⚠️ Approve with waivers — blockers/majors waived via listed ADRs. Safe to commit.
- ❌ Request changes — blockers exist with no waiver. Commit blocked.
Build efficiency — run the build once, read many
Do NOT re-run a multi-minute build/test command (e.g. ./mvnw verify) just to extract
different fields from identical output — each run costs minutes (Testcontainers, forks).
Run it once, capture the full log, then grep/read that file as many times as needed:
./mvnw <goals> -l target/verify.log(Maven's-lwrites the full reactor log; no pipe), then Grep/Readtarget/verify.logfor test counts, BUILD result, gate output, etc.- Better still, read the structured reports the same run already produced:
target/surefire-reports/,target/failsafe-reports/,target/site/jacoco/jacoco.csv,target/spotbugsXml.xml. - Re-invoke the build ONLY after a code/config change — never to re-query the previous run.
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 · 75 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A f8bc86b23e95
spring-code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular (62 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 908 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Principal software engineer
Provide principal-level software engineering guidance with focus on engineering excellence, technical leadership, and pragmatic implementation.
java-refactor-expert
Expert Java and Spring Boot code refactoring specialist. Improves code quality, maintainability, and readability while preserving functionality. Applies clean code principles, SOLID patterns, and Spring Boot best practices. Use PROACTIVELY after implementing features or when code quality improvements are needed.
general-code-reviewer
Provides code review capability for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues. Use when reviewing code changes or before merging pull requests.
StoryVerifier
QC sub-agent. Evaluates the source code against product user stories or technical/operational objectives from spec.md to ensure all requirements are fully implemented.
ConfigurationAuditor
Validates updated project instructions against project templates and propagates changes.
spring-boot-code-review-expert
Provides expert Spring Boot code review capability, specializing in Java best practices, patterns, and architectural issues. Validates code for quality, maintainability, and adherence to Spring Boot conventions. Use proactively after code changes or when implementing new features.