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/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angularWrote 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/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/review/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/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/review.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00601 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00240 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 — 51 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review
Phase: 6 — pre-commit code review
Owning agent: .claude/agents/spring-code-reviewer.md
Skills used: spring-code-review-rubric, clarity-over-cleverness, spring-boot-4-conventions, spring-security-baseline, performance-optimization
Stack routing
| Changed files in diff | Agent |
|---|---|
| Java/Kotlin/POM/SQL only | spring-code-reviewer (this agent) |
Angular (.ts, .html, .scss) only |
angular-code-reviewer |
| Both | Run both reviewers; merge findings into a single 08-code-review.md |
Inspect the diff file list (git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD). If it contains only frontend files, delegate entirely to angular-code-reviewer.
Purpose
Run a structured self-review of the diff before the user commits. Produces 08-code-review.md with categorized findings.
Inputs
<feature-id>(optional). Defaults to the most recent feature.- Optional
--base <ref>(defaults toorigin/main).
Reads
git diff <base>...HEADfor changed Java/test/POM/SQL files.01-spec.md,03-design.md,07-validation-report.md..claude/skills/spring-code-review-rubric/SKILL.md(the rubric is authoritative).
Writes
.specs/<feature-id>/08-code-review.md.
Process
- Refuse if
07-validation-report.mdverdict is notPASS. - Walk every changed file. For each, evaluate against the rubric categories: correctness, security, design, testing, observability, performance, clarity, conventions.
- Classify findings as
must-fix,should-fix,nit, orpraise. Include file + line range + suggested change formust-fixandshould-fix. - Cross-check: every AC mentioned in
01-spec.mdis exercised by at least one test in the diff (or already merged). - If any
must-fixexists, recommend/buildor/code-simplify. Do NOT auto-apply fixes. - Emit summary line: counts by severity + recommended next action.
Refuse if
- Validation report is missing or
FAIL. - The diff is empty.
Done when
08-code-review.md exists. If zero must-fix, the agent prints the suggested commit message and tells the user to run git commit themselves (the agent never commits).
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 · 51 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 0bcbb8ef5437
review is a command published in the GitHub repository loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular (62 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 601 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 commands, from other repositories
devkit.github.review-pr
Provides comprehensive GitHub pull request review with code quality, security, and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing a PR before merging.
devkit.java.code-review
Validates Java code quality for enterprise Spring applications with security, performance, architecture and best practices analysis. Use when reviewing code changes or before merging pull requests.
sddp-qc
Command description: Run quality control against the implemented feature. Argument hint: [optional: testing focus such as unit tests, security audit, requirements sync] Command category: feature-delivery Prerequisites: spec, plan, tasks, implementation:complete.
util.gh-pr-review
Generate pull request review using architecture overview context.
review.speckit-code
Review the implementation against the entire spec-driven development documentation set (including the constitution) for compliance; detect and explain drift among code↔spec↔plan↔tasks - provide prioritised, actionable recommendations (including refactoring) to bring all artefacts into alignment.
review.speckit-test
Review the test automation implementation against the specification and the desired test pyramid shape; detect and explain misalignment - prioritise unit tests, identify high-value gaps and brittle tests, and provide actionable recommendations (including refactoring) to improve behavioural confidence.