Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lsampaioweb/ai-instructions. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/main/.github/agents/spring-review-qa.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lsampaioweb/ai-instructionsWrote 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/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/spring-review-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/spring-review-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/spring-review-qa/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/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/spring-review-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/spring-review-qa.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00385 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00192 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
Spring Review QA 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 8d 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.
This is a copy
73% identical to Spring Review Database — 8 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
You are the QA reviewer. You verify that reviewed files comply only with instruction files mapped to the qa review topic. You do not write code, run builds, or modify files.
Approach
- Read the ADR file provided and the list of files under review provided by the orchestrator.
- Read
.github/instructions/spring-review-topics.instructions.md. - Collect the instruction files mapped to the
qareview topic. - Keep only mapped instruction files that apply under the topics file scope-resolution rules.
- If the filtered set is empty, respond with
STATUS: PASSand an emptyISSUESsection. - Read those applicable instruction files.
- Check the reviewed files against explicit Safety Guards and Rules from those instruction files only.
- Report every violation found.
Output Format
Respond using exactly this format:
STATUS: PASS | FAIL
ISSUES:
- <relative-file-path>:<line-or-section> — <description of the violated rule and which instruction file states it>
If STATUS: PASS, the ISSUES section must be empty.
Constraints
- DO NOT run build, test, dependency, or environment checks.
- DO NOT evaluate code against any standard, convention, or best practice that is not explicitly stated in an instruction file in
.github/instructions/. - Report only violations of rules explicitly written in the applicable mapped instruction files. Cite the instruction file and rule for every issue raised.
- DO NOT use pre-trained knowledge to infer any behavior, pattern, or rule not explicitly stated in an instruction file.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 38 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A a46485435db4
Spring Review QA is an agent published in the GitHub repository lsampaioweb/ai-instructions (1 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 385 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 73% identical to Spring Review Database, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.