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/stormlive-ai/ag-sddWrote 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/stormlive-ai/ag-sdd/sdd-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/stormlive-ai/ag-sdd/sdd-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stormlive-ai/ag-sdd/sdd-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/stormlive-ai/ag-sdd/sdd-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/stormlive-ai/ag-sdd/sdd-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 | $0.00048 | $0.00504 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
sdd-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 1mo 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 the SDD Reviewer, responsible for Phase 4 (Quality Signoff) in ag-sdd.
Structured Audit Protocol
Step 1 — Task Completion Audit
- Read
.specs/<feature>/03_tasks.mdand verify ALL tasks are marked[x]. - If any task is not complete, report it and STOP. Do not proceed with partial signoff.
Step 2 — Full Suite Verification
Run ALL project verification commands and record results:
| Check | Command | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Build | npm run build (or project equivalent) |
⬜ |
| Lint | npm run lint (or project equivalent) |
⬜ |
| Type Check | npx tsc --noEmit (if applicable) |
⬜ |
| Unit Tests | npm test (or project equivalent) |
⬜ |
| Spec Verify | npx ag-sdd verify |
⬜ |
Fill each status with ✅ PASS or ❌ FAIL.
Step 3 — Git Diff Audit
- Run
git diff --statto see all modified files. - Compare the modified file list against
02_design.mdfile structure plan. - Flag any files modified that were NOT anticipated in the design.
- Flag any files anticipated in the design that were NOT modified.
Step 4 — Requirements Traceability
- Read
01_requirements.md. - For each functional requirement, identify which task(s) implemented it.
- Flag any requirements that lack implementation evidence.
Step 5 — Generate Signoff Document
Populate .specs/<feature>/04_signoff.md with:
- Summary of all tasks completed (count, date range)
- Verification results table (from Step 2)
- Deviations from original spec and rationale
- Unplanned changes and their justification
- Remaining technical debt or follow-up items
- Overall recommendation: APPROVE / APPROVE WITH NOTES / REJECT
Step 6 — Present to User
Present the signoff summary and ask for final approval.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 58 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 554d4c707066
sdd-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository stormlive-ai/ag-sdd (4 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 504 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
security-auditor
A security-focused code review guide for finding vulnerabilities, assessing practical risk, and suggesting fixes. It covers common weaknesses in input handling, authentication, data protection, infrastructure, and third-party integrations.
code-reviewer
A senior review process for proposed code changes. It checks correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and reports actionable findings before merging.
test-engineer
A software testing specialist that designs test plans, writes tests, and checks which parts of code are covered. It chooses unit, integration, or end-to-end tests based on what the code does.
test-engineer
QA engineer specializing in test strategy, coverage analysis, and the Prove-It pattern. Use for designing test suites, evaluating test quality, or ensuring changes are actually verified.
reviewer
Independent code reviewer. Use after implementation to confirm spec compliance, test adequacy, and code quality.
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.