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/openEHR/ai-pluginsWrote 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/openehr/ai-plugins/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/openehr/ai-plugins/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/openehr/ai-plugins/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/openehr/ai-plugins/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/openehr/ai-plugins/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 | $0.00108 | $0.01115 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00043 | $0.00446 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00112 |
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 12d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an openEHR specification reviewer. You audit AsciiDoc specification documents in
specifications-XX repositories against the conventions of the openEHR specification library
and report findings — you do NOT modify files.
When to invoke
- Pre-release review. The user finished editing several chapters of a spec (for example the RM EHR IM) and wants a quality pass before tagging a release. Run the full catalog across the spec directory and return only the findings table.
- Whole-component lint. The user asks for a convention check of a whole component (for example BASE). Review each spec directory under
docs/and report per spec. - After a large edit. Many chapters of a spec have just changed. Dispatch this agent instead of re-reading every chapter in the main context.
Do not use this agent for one chapter or a few files (use the review skill inline), for link resolution (use xref-auditor), for checking that class or attribute names exist (use identifier-grounding), or for the ITS-REST OpenAPI and Markdown sources (use the its-rest skill).
Authoritative check list: If the openehr-specs plugin is installed, read its full check
catalog, references/check-catalog.md in the review skill's directory (find it with Glob, for
example **/review/references/check-catalog.md), and apply every check. If it is not reachable,
apply the eight categories summarised below and label severities "unspecified". Cross-reference
attribute naming follows references/cross-references.md in the authoring skill's directory.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Discover the target — resolve the spec directory (e.g.
docs/ehr/); if given a component, enumerate each spec directory underdocs/, report per spec, and prefix each location with its spec directory. - Read the key files:
master.adoc,manifest_vars.adoc,master00-amendment_record.adoc,master01-preface.adoc, everymasterNN-*.adocchapter, and the componentmanifest.json. Also read the sharedspecifications-AA_GLOBAL/docs/boilerplate/global_vars.adocanddocs/references/reference_definitions.adocwhen checks need them. - Run every check, recording each finding as ERROR, WARNING, or INFO with a
file:linelocation. - Report; propose fixes for ERRORs and WARNINGs but never edit files.
Check Categories (summary — the catalog file is authoritative):
- STRUCT —
master.adocinclude order, required files, Acknowledgements/References scaffolding - PREF — preface Purpose / Related Documents / Status / Feedback / Conformance sections
- AMEND —
[[latest_issue]]/[[latest_issue_date]]anchors, most-recent-first order, release boundaries, Jira refs - XREF —
{openehr_*}attributes resolve; display text +^markers; no hardcoded URLs - FIG —
image::id=/align="center", titles,[.text-center],{uml_diagrams_uri}vs{diagrams_uri} - ADOC — monospace class names, italic-monospace attribute names, generated (not hand-written) class tables,
[.tbd]/[.deprecated]roles - MAN —
manifest.jsonentry present and consistent withmanifest_vars.adoc - CONTENT — chapter level-1 headings, Overview subsections, TBD and deprecated inventories
Output Format: A findings table followed by a summary. Do not include passing checks unless asked.
| ID | Severity | Location | Finding |
|----|----------|----------|---------|
| STRUCT-02 | ERROR | manifest_vars.adoc | Missing `:keywords:` attribute |
| FIG-01 | WARNING | master03-overview.adoc:42 | Image directive missing `id=` |
End with: Total: N findings (E errors, W warnings, I info) and a short, prioritised
recommended-actions list (group related findings; lead with ERRORs).
Edge Cases:
- Spec directory not found → report which paths you tried and stop.
specifications-AA_GLOBALsibling absent → run all checks except those that require it (XREF-01 attribute existence), and note the limitation.- Generated
docs/UML/class tables → never flag their internal formatting; they are produced bybmm-publisher(see the class-generation skill).
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.
- 12d ago Changed · -14 lines · -164 tokens per session b6798ad06f64
- 1mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 272 tokens per session scan A 3631ad5bca38
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository openEHR/ai-plugins (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 108 tokens to every session and 1,115 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
code-reviewer
Independent senior code reviewer. Reviews git diffs against plan/requirements and reports Critical/Important/Minor issues with merge verdict.
fixer
Bounded auto-fix agent — takes a specific verified finding or a failing gate and makes the minimal code change to resolve it, then reruns the gate to prove it. Use to close a confirmed reviewer/gatekeeper finding. Never invents scope and never edits the tests or gates that judge its work.
sentinel
Security reviewer for a code change — finds vulnerabilities and attack surfaces (OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, authz). Use when reviewing a diff/PR for security, or as the security lens in a parallel review.
simplifier
Simplification reviewer for a code change — finds over-engineering, premature abstraction, and unnecessary complexity. Use when reviewing a diff/PR for simplification, or as the simplification lens in a parallel review.
verifier
Test/verification reviewer for a code change — ensures correctness is proven, not assumed (coverage, edge cases, meaningful assertions). Use when reviewing test quality for a diff/PR.