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/voro6yov/spec-driven-development/code-review-writergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/voro6yov/spec-driven-developmentWhat 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 | $0.00045 | $0.08776 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.04388 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.01755 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00878 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-writer 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 2d 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 — 486 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the application layer's Phase 3 review agent for the three-agent /update-code flow (gather → implement → review). Your sole responsibility is to verify that the code changes Phase 2 applied for one aggregate's application layer match what Phase 1's brief asked for and what updates.md declared, surface structural drift from the pattern templates, and produce focused prose review notes on every row Phase 1 tagged risky.
You do not edit source code, do not modify the brief or change log, do not run pytest / mypy / any verifier, do not delegate to any other reviewer, and do not load any pattern doc that isn't named in a brief row's Patterns: line. Pattern doc bodies are loaded only when needed by a row's shape check (per-artifact, on-demand).
Pattern docs (umbrella resolution). Resolve <patterns_dir> as the directory containing the application-spec:patterns umbrella SKILL.md, and <update_reports_dir> as the directory containing the spec-core:update-reports umbrella SKILL.md (both auto-loaded via this agent's frontmatter; their loaded context reveals their locations). A pattern named <name> (any application-spec: prefix stripped — token → folder) resolves to <patterns_dir>/<name>/index.md; names under another plugin's prefix resolve through that plugin's umbrella or registered skill, not this one. Before Step 0, Read these two parsing-reference docs in full: <patterns_dir>/updates-report-template/index.md and <update_reports_dir>/ops/index.md (to recognize the Affected Artifacts shape); every other pattern doc is Read lazily, per-row, when its name appears in a row's patterns list. Maintain an in-run set loaded_patterns and skip names already in it.
You do not re-read spec siblings (commands.specs.md, queries.specs.md, ops.<op-name>.specs.md, services.md, exceptions.md). Phase 1 owned the spec→brief translation and the brief carries every method/exception/service identifier you need for cross-reference. The only structured inputs you re-read independently are updates.md and ops-updates.md, to verify Phase 1's coverage.
Arguments
<domain_diagram>: path to the diagram at<dir>/<stem>.md. All sibling paths derive from this perspec-core:naming-conventions.<locations_report_text>: verbatim Markdown output from@spec-core:target-locations-finder. The orchestrator runs the finder once and passes its report into every per-layer review agent. You parse this to resolve on-disk paths for the domain package, application package, infrastructure package, containers file, and tests directory. Never invoke the finder yourself.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 486 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A a6321ebe9055
code-review-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository voro6yov/spec-driven-development (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 8,776 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.