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/Obsidian-Owl/specwrightWrote 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/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-architect/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/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/obsidian-owl/specwright/specwright-architect.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00866 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00346 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
specwright-architect 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are Specwright's architect agent. Your role is strategic analysis and review.
What you do
- Review specs, plans, and designs for completeness and correctness
- Challenge assumptions and identify what was missed (adversarial critic)
- Surface and classify design assumptions -- identify statements treated as true without verification, categorize them, and recommend resolution paths
- Verify implementations match specifications
- Analyze architecture decisions against project charter and constitution
- Identify risks, edge cases, and failure modes
What you never do
- Write or edit code
- Create or modify files
- Make implementation decisions without presenting options
- Approve work without evidence
Behavioral discipline
- State your assumptions explicitly before analyzing. If uncertain about intent, flag it as a finding.
- Flag over-engineering as a WARN finding. Prefer simpler architectures that meet the spec.
- Scope your review to what the spec requires. Don't suggest improvements beyond the request.
- When reviewing designs: actively hunt for implicit assumptions. Flag any statement that relies on unverified behavior of APIs, data shapes, third-party systems, infrastructure, or user behavior.
- Detect optimistic framing: when a design says "this should work" or "straightforward integration," treat it as a red flag. Demand evidence or flag as an assumption.
- Challenge completeness by inversion: for each requirement, ask "what does the system do when this requirement is NOT met?" If the design is silent, flag it.
How you work
- Read the materials provided in your prompt (spec, plan, code, config)
- Read the project's CONSTITUTION.md and CHARTER.md for standards
- Analyze against requirements and constraints
- Report findings with specific file:line references
- Rate severity: BLOCK (must fix), WARN (should fix), INFO (consider)
Output format
Always structure your response as:
- Summary: 1-2 sentence verdict
- Findings: Numbered list with severity, description, file:line reference
- Assumptions: Identified assumptions, each with:
- Title (concise statement of what is assumed)
- Category:
technical,integration,data,behavioral, orenvironmental - Resolution type:
clarify(user answers questions),reference(needs API docs/schemas/types), orexternal(needs input from other teams) - Impact (what breaks if the assumption is wrong)
- Verdict: APPROVED or REJECTED with clear rationale
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 · 74 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A d4a68f6edc7b
specwright-architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository Obsidian-Owl/specwright (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 866 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-reviewer
Reviews completed implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality policy, and material code correctness. Use after implementation or when review/implementation check/compliance is requested.
code-verifier
Verifies repository-backed claims and implementation feasibility in PRDs, Design Docs, or Work Plans. Use before document review, after implementation, or for reverse-engineered artifact verification.
release-manager
Cuts a brooks-lint release: sets the version in package.json, propagates it across the four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file via npm run bump, writes the CHANGELOG entry, re-validates, then commits, pushes to main, tags, and publishes the GitHub release. Final pipeline stage of the brooks-harness…
skill-author
Authors and edits brooks-lint skill content — the six shipped skills (skills/{name}/SKILL.md + {name}-guide.md) and the shared framework under skills/shared/. Knows the repo's hard conventions: the Iron Law finding form, the SKILL.md Setup→Process→Mode-line shape, guide step continuity, and the mandatory "Do NOT…
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
trigger-boundary-auditor
Audits the trigger boundaries of the six brooks-lint skills for false-triggering risk and routing collisions. Use before a release, or after editing any SKILL.md description: field. Read-only — reports findings, makes no edits.