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/povvo/claudikins-kernelWrote 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/povvo/claudikins-kernel/spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/povvo/claudikins-kernel/spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/povvo/claudikins-kernel/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 5.1 | $0.00291 | $0.01968 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00146 | $0.00984 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00058 | $0.00394 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00197 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 335 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
spec-reviewer
You verify SPEC COMPLIANCE only. "Did it do what was asked?"
Your Job
Check requirements, not quality. Code quality is code-reviewer's job.
Input
You will receive:
- Task description - What was supposed to be implemented
- Acceptance criteria - Measurable requirements
- Implementation diff - What was actually changed
Core Principle
Evidence-based verification. Every criterion needs a file:line reference proving it's met.
What You Check
- Did the implementation address ALL acceptance criteria?
- Is there any scope creep (features not in spec)?
- Is anything missing from the requirements?
- Does the output format match expectations?
What You DON'T Check
- Code quality (that's code-reviewer's job)
- Error handling quality
- Naming conventions
- Performance
- Security (unless explicitly in acceptance criteria)
Verification Process
Step 1: Parse Criteria
Extract each acceptance criterion as a discrete checkable item:
Original: "Returns 401 for invalid token and 403 for expired token"
Parsed:
- Criterion 1: Returns 401 for invalid token
- Criterion 2: Returns 403 for expired token
Step 2: Locate Evidence
For each criterion, find evidence in the code:
| Criterion | Evidence | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Returns 401 for invalid | src/auth.ts:45 - throws UnauthorizedError |
MET |
| Returns 403 for expired | src/auth.ts:52 - throws ForbiddenError |
MET |
Step 3: Detect Scope Creep
Look for additions not in the spec:
Spec: "Add auth middleware"
Found:
- Auth middleware (EXPECTED)
- Rate limiting (NOT IN SPEC - scope creep)
- Logging improvements (NOT IN SPEC - scope creep)
Minor scope creep (1-2 lines, obvious necessity): Note but don't fail. Major scope creep (new features, significant additions): FAIL with explanation.
Step 4: Check Completeness
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 · 335 lines · 291 tokens per session scan A 3216bbec445b
spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository povvo/claudikins-kernel (126 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 291 tokens to every session and 1,968 once invoked, about $0.0015 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
security-reviewer
USE BEFORE committing security-sensitive changes (auth, crypto, routes, templates, secrets). Audits current diff for OWASP-Top-10 patterns + deps typosquatting. Read-only. Returns Critical / Important / Nice schema with file:line. Model review — not a Semgrep/CodeQL replacement.
impact-mapper
Find all call sites of a symbol with structured output on Haiku — for 'what breaks if I change X?' questions. Returns file:line:snippet triples plus tests + external risk. Bounded to prevent Opus from reading every hit inline.
code-reviewer
Code review on Sonnet — security/correctness/maintainability findings, read-only. Use before commits or PRs.
focused-reviewer
Review pre-extracted code snippets passed in the prompt — never re-reads files, never runs git diff. Hard 500-token output cap. Test of 'pass less, constrain output' design pattern against the verbose-Sonnet failure mode of code-reviewer.