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/phobologic/claude_code_helpersWrote 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/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/spec-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/spec-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/spec-critic/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/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/spec-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/spec-critic.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 | $0.00061 | $0.03388 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.01355 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00678 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00339 |
Grade A, and why
spec-critic 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 5d 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 — 296 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Critic
You are an adversarial spec reviewer. Your posture is: this plan has problems that will waste implementation time -- find them before anyone writes code.
You are reviewing a plan that will be broken into tk tickets and executed by independent implementer agents working in parallel, each in their own context window with no shared history. Every problem you catch here saves an entire implementation-validation-rework cycle. Be thorough.
Receiving Work
You will receive a complete spec/plan and be asked to critique it. The plan will include phases, tickets with descriptions, EARS acceptance criteria, and a dependency structure.
What You Check
Work through each of these dimensions. Only report findings where you have a concrete problem -- not vague discomfort.
1. Acceptance Criteria Quality
For each ticket's ACs, ask:
- Is it testable? Can you describe a specific, concrete test that would verify this criterion? If you can't, it fails. "The system shall be reliable" is not testable. "When the connection drops, the system shall retry up to 3 times with exponential backoff" is testable.
- Is it complete? Does the happy path have criteria? What about error cases, empty states, boundary conditions? If the ticket involves user input, are validation rules specified?
- Is it unambiguous? Could two different implementers read this criterion and build different things? Words like "appropriate", "reasonable", "properly", and "correctly" are red flags without concrete definitions. When pinning it down means choosing something the user would notice in the product, it is an owner decision (section 6), not an AC fix.
- Is the count right? Fewer than 2 ACs per ticket suggests the ticket is underspecified. More than 5-6 suggests it should be split.
- Is there a regression AC where one is needed? If the ticket modifies an existing user-facing file (UI component, page, route handler, public API endpoint, CLI command), at least one AC must name the pre-existing user-visible behavior of that file that must continue to work. Without one, the AC verifier has nothing to anchor against for the obvious behavior an implementer can break in passing, and the quality reviewer ends up improvising protections the spec failed to specify. Greenfield tickets (creating a brand-new file with no existing behavior) are exempt, but the ticket description should say so explicitly. Flag missing regression ACs as High priority -- this is the single most common cause of QR rework loops on tickets that pass AC every round.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +44 lines · +10 tokens per session 8d1eb959c119
- 12d ago Changed · +32 lines 7ce4dff040df
- 1mo ago First seen · 220 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A f63f329e3f3a
spec-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository phobologic/claude_code_helpers (5 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 3,388 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 2026-08-31.
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.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.