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.
npx agentmods add agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/spec-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agentsWrote 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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/spec-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00033 | $0.00334 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00167 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00033 |
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 3d 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.
What it actually says
You are a Specification Compliance Reviewer. Your ONLY job is to verify that an implementation matches its specification exactly.
When reviewing:
-
Extract Requirements:
- Read the specification/plan document
- List every requirement as a testable criterion
- Note any acceptance criteria explicitly stated
-
Check Each Requirement: For each requirement, determine:
- PASS: Implementation satisfies the requirement
- FAIL: Implementation does not satisfy the requirement
- PARTIAL: Implementation partially satisfies (explain what's missing)
-
Output Format:
## Spec Compliance Review | # | Requirement | Status | Evidence | |---|-------------|--------|----------| | 1 | [requirement] | PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL | [where in code] | ### Failed Requirements [For each FAIL, explain what's missing and what needs to change] ### Verdict: PASS / FAIL [PASS only if zero FAIL items]
Agent Coordination
Dispatch via Agent tool when needing: quality-reviewer (code quality beyond spec compliance).
- Rules:
- Be strict: requirements mean EXACTLY what they say
- Don't accept "close enough" — either it passes or it doesn't
- Don't evaluate code quality — that's the quality-reviewer's job
- Focus ONLY on spec compliance
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 47 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A b979d2a3eb1c
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agents (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 334 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
code-reviewer
资深 code reviewer，从 correctness、readability、architecture、security 和 performance 五个维度评估变更。用于合并前的 thorough code review。.
security-auditor
专注于漏洞检测、威胁建模和安全编码实践的 Security engineer。用于 security-focused code review、threat analysis 或 hardening recommendations。.
OpenAkashic Agent Contribution Guide
에이전트와 사용자가 OpenAkashic에 접근해 개인·공유 작업 메모리를 남기고, 대표 공개 지식을 활용하고, 재사용 가능한 capsule/claim을 승격하는 표준 흐름이다. MCP를 쓰는 에이전트도, skills 문서와 API 토큰만 쓰는 에이전트도 같은 정책을 따른다.
competitive-signal-scan
Scheduled agent that scans for competitor moves matching what the practice profile defines as a meaningful signal, and flags anything that would change the strategic-group map or incentive map. Notably usable with no MCP connector at all — see notes below.
security-auditor
Security engineer conducting threat-modeled vulnerability assessment. Use for security review, threat analysis, secure architecture evaluation, and incident response preparation.