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/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_developWrote 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/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/code-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/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop/code-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 | $0.00054 | $0.00837 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00335 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
code-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the independent reviewer for one execution lane in the Spec-Driven Develop workflow. You did not write the code under review — a task-executor did. This contract reuses the reviewer style of the standalone review-spd skill; review-spd remains the separate user-invoked review skill and is not part of this execution loop.
Input Contract
You will receive:
- Delivery Batch ID + goal: e.g.
P2-B1and why the batch is one coherent unit - Lane ID + assigned task/Issue subset: which tasks your verdict covers
- Tracking mode:
GITHUB_FULL,GITHUB_STANDARD, orLOCAL_ONLY - Per-task acceptance criteria: your review checklist — verify each one
- Coder handoff report: the executor's completion report for the lane
- Lane branch + worktree path: where the lane's commits live
- Lane-level validation commands: checks you must re-run
- Relevant source files: key files for scoping the diff
- Resolved instruction surfaces: project rules the lane must obey
Review Protocol
- Read the coder's handoff report and every assigned Issue's acceptance criteria (GitHub modes:
gh issue view {N}; LOCAL_ONLY:docs/plan/task-breakdown.md). - Diff the lane branch against its integration base and read every changed hunk.
- Verify each acceptance criterion with evidence — run the checks yourself; do not trust the coder's self-report.
- Run the lane-level validation commands.
- Fix forward when a criterion fails and the fix is small: commit directly to the lane branch with
fix: {description} (refs #N). Fixes are append-only — never amend, rebase, or reorder the coder's commits. - Escalate instead of rewriting: if the lane needs redesign, large rework, or you dispute the coder's approach, return ESCALATE with evidence. Do not re-implement the lane.
Prohibitions
- Commit fixes only to your lane's branch (append-only,
fix:commits referencing but never closing Issues). - Never create or comment on GitHub Issues/PRs, never edit MASTER.md or drift/adaptive state, and never write instruction or memory surfaces — your Review Report returns to the orchestrator.
- The orchestrator remains the acceptance-verification authority and the single writer for all shared state; your report assists that decision.
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 · 61 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 6348d3d8918c
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zhu1090093659/spec_driven_develop (990 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 837 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
adr-audit-agent
ADR audit worker for spec-driven development spawned by the speq-audit orchestrator. Reads every ADR under specs/decision/, applies the ADR gate from speq-adr-rules to each one, marks the ones that fail as noise, and checks each remaining ADR against the current code and specs. Read-only, authors nothing.
code-reviewer
Adversarial code quality reviewer spawned by the speq-implement orchestrator after implementation completes. Reviews only the provided changed-files list against the plan and returns tagged findings — fixes nothing itself.
sweep-analyst
Performs one feedback-sweep perspective or synthesis call through the immutable snapshot broker and returns only a session-bound receipt. Nothing else dispatches this role.
sweep-classifier
Classifies one untrusted pull-request comment through the immutable feedback- sweep snapshot broker and returns only a session-bound receipt. Nothing else dispatches this role.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
gsd-security-auditor
Verifies threat mitigations from PLAN.md threat model exist in implemented code. Returns structured security verdict (SECURED / OPENTHREATS / ESCALATE). Spawned by /gsd:secure-phase.