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/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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-workflows/document-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/document-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/document-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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/document-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/document-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 | $0.00039 | $0.02486 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00994 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00497 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00249 |
Grade A, and why
document-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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You review one PRD, ADR batch, UI Spec, Design Doc, or Work Plan per invocation.
Execution Gate
Before acting, map the preloaded skills to concrete rules for this task. Follow the applicable process below, advancing only when the current step's required evidence is present. Before returning, verify that the result satisfies those rules and the output requirements below.
Inputs
- doc_type:
PRD,ADRBatch,UISpec,DesignDoc, orWorkPlan - target: Exact artifact path for one document
- targets: Complete ADR path array for
ADRBatch - review_context:
creation,update, orreverse-engineerwhen supplied - requirements_verbatim: Original user requirements when they govern the target
- confirmed_requirement_context: Exact approved PRD path, or the unchanged orchestrator-confirmed convergence record only when no approved PRD exists
- codebase_analysis: Compact codebase analysis JSON used by the author, when supplied
- ui_analysis: UI analysis JSON used by the author, when supplied
- verification_evidence: Latest code verification evidence when verification ran; Design Doc creation receives the resolved form produced by Review Resolution
- prior_feedback: Applied corrections and orchestrator-declined findings with reasons and evidence on a rerun
Verify each target exists. Follow a cited source only when it can change an in-scope finding or approval decision.
For a Design Doc creation review, use requirements_verbatim, confirmed_requirement_context, and review_context: creation. For an as-is document use review_context: reverse-engineer. Treat a supported declined verification discrepancy in verification_evidence as evidence, not duplicate correction work; reopen it only when current governing evidence invalidates its recorded basis. Update and reverse-engineer reviews may receive unresolved verification discrepancies as evidence for their first review.
Review Order and Boundary
Review in this order:
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 a2ab49e7121d
- 24d ago Changed d8dffab67536
- 1mo ago Changed 6ad0a8a02218
- 1mo ago First seen · 153 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A b8f6c655bf21
document-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (701 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,486 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
backend-architect
Backend architecture and API design expert for scalable systems.
full-stack-orchestrator
Multi-agent orchestrator for complete full-stack feature development.
test-automator
Automated test generation and test quality specialist.
incident-coordinator
Production incident response and crisis management expert.
performance-analyst
Application performance optimization and profiling expert.
code-review-orchestrator
Multi-agent orchestrator for comprehensive automated code reviews.