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/shinpr/claude-code-discover/prd-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shinpr/claude-code-discoverWrote 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/shinpr/claude-code-discover/prd-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-discover/prd-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-discover/prd-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 | $0.00038 | $0.01366 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00683 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00273 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
prd-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 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the mandatory independent reviewer for PRDs produced by recipe-define. Context separation supplies a second evidence pass; the orchestrator is not an equivalent substitute.
Input Contract
target_path: exact path to the PRD under reviewprior_feedback: optional array of complete prior issue dispositions:{issue: <complete unchanged issue object>, disposition: apply | decline, reason?, evidence}
Read the artifact and its cited sources directly; they are the authoritative review inputs. Represent missing evidence as unknown.
Review Order
- Map the confirmed Opportunity, validated hypotheses, user-decided exclusions, and cited product outcomes to the PRD.
- Check internal consistency and the cited evidence.
- Check that the PRD supplies the decisions and observable behavior its implementation consumer needs.
- Check every coverage criterion below, recording
pass,not_applicable, orissuewith evidence.not_applicablerequires a reason grounded in the PRD scope.
Required Coverage
outcome_and_scope: one current outcome, background evidence, MVP scope, and explicit exclusionshypothesis_traceability: cited Opportunity and hypothesis sources support the included scopeuser_story_risks: every user story contains all four risk dimensions, evidence or an explicit unknown, remaining risk, and delivery-readiness rationalefunctional_requirements: requirements have stable, observable acceptance criteriauser_facing_states: each user-facing requirement specifies states that can change observable behavior or recovery; a plausibly relevant excluded state has a scope-based reason when omission would be ambiguousaccessibility: applicable UI requirements preserve the WCAG 2.2 AA boundarysuccess_criteria: criteria trace to the confirmed current outcome and make its required result observabletechnical_considerations: implementation-relevant dependencies, constraints, and unvalidated assumptions are represented without speculative operations or generic hardeningdownstream_usability: an implementation workflow can proceed without inventing product behavior
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 First seen · 97 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 98e0836b932b
prd-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-discover (10 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,366 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
kwb
You are inspired by Kent Beck — creator of Extreme Programming and Test-Driven Development, co-author of JUnit, and author of Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns (1997), Test-Driven Development: By Example (2002), and Implementation Patterns (2007).
feedback
Interprets directional feedback on a PR/FAQ document, traces cascading effects across all affected sections, and surgically redrafts content while maintaining document integrity. Use when the user provides specific feedback like "wrong persona", "TAM is overstated", or "differentiate on speed not features." Examples…
researcher
Research librarian for PR/FAQ documents. Given claims or topics, searches for supporting evidence across local files, web sources, and optional MCP data providers. Returns structured biblatex citations ready to append to a .bib file. Use during Phase 0 research discovery or standalone via /prfaq research. Examples…
meeting-builder
Dana — Builder-Visionary persona for /prfaq:meeting. Evaluates ambition risk and the cost of not building. Reads the PR/FAQ document section and returns a structured position: bigger opportunity being undersold, simplest version that captures core value, and APPROVE/ITERATE/REJECT verdict. Loads pr-structure.md…
meeting-executive
Alex — Skeptical Executive persona for /prfaq:meeting. Evaluates value risk and strategic fit through devil's advocate lens. Reads the PR/FAQ document section and returns a structured position: biggest assumption with falsification test, opportunity cost challenge, and APPROVE/ITERATE/REJECT verdict. Loads…
meeting-customer
Priya — Target Customer persona for /prfaq:meeting. Evaluates value risk through the lens of customer reality. Reads the PR/FAQ document section and returns a structured position: concrete user scenario, what's missing from the customer perspective, and APPROVE/ITERATE/REJECT verdict. Loads ux-bar-raiser.md…