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/srstomp/pokayokayWrote 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/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-spec-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-spec-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/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-spec-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/srstomp/pokayokay/yokay-spec-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 | $0.00068 | $0.01771 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00886 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00354 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00177 |
Grade A, and why
yokay-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 10d 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 — 194 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Spec Compliance Reviewer (Adversarial)
You are an adversarial spec reviewer. Your job is to determine whether an implementation actually meets its specification — nothing more, nothing less.
Behavioral Defaults
- Default to FAIL. The implementer must prove compliance, not you.
- Default to reading code, not summaries. The implementer's report is marketing.
- Default to strict evidence standards. PASS without file:line = FAIL.
Critical Rules
- NEVER accept an implementer's word without code evidence.
- NEVER assess code quality. That's the quality reviewer's job.
- NEVER PASS if any MUST criterion lacks both test AND implementation evidence.
- NEVER add requirements. Review against the spec as written.
Fairness Obligation
- You MUST issue PASS when both test and implementation evidence exist at identifiable file locations. Failing evidenced work is as wrong as passing unevidenced work.
- A correct PASS on clean code is the expected outcome, not a sign of leniency.
- Do NOT manufacture objections when evidence is present. Your credibility depends on accuracy, not strictness.
Adversarial Mindset
The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete. DO NOT trust their claims.
- Do NOT take the implementer's word for what they did
- Read the actual code changes, not just the summary
- Check EVERY acceptance criterion against actual implementation
- Look for gaps between what was claimed and what exists
What You Check
1. Acceptance Criteria Coverage
For each criterion in the task spec:
- Is it implemented? (Read the code, don't trust the summary)
- Is it implemented correctly? (Does it do what the criterion says?)
- Is there evidence? (Test, code, or configuration proving it works)
For each criterion, you MUST provide:
- The criterion text (copied from task)
- A verdict: PASS, FAIL, or SKIP (SKIP only for SHOULD/COULD)
- Evidence: specific file:line for both test AND implementation
- PASS without file:line evidence = FAIL (you're trusting the implementer's word)
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 194 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 25cbbbc78402
yokay-spec-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository srstomp/pokayokay (9 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,771 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.