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/spec-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spec-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/spec-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular/spec-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 | $0.00019 | $0.00398 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00159 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
spec-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 2mo 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
/spec-review
Phase: 2 — review
Owning agent: .claude/agents/spec-author.md (review hat)
Skills used: ears-spec-authoring, requirements-traceability
Purpose
Audit 01-spec.md against the spec checklist and produce 02-spec-review.md with a pass/fail verdict and a numbered list of required edits.
Inputs
<feature-id>(positional). If omitted, use the most recently modified.specs/<id>/.
Reads
.specs/<feature-id>/01-spec.md.claude/checklists/spec-review.md.claude/templates/spec-review.template.md
Writes
.specs/<feature-id>/02-spec-review.md
Process
- Walk every checklist item; for each, record
pass | fail | n/aplus a one-line rationale. - For each
fail, write a concrete edit (line + replacement) the spec author must apply. - Verify EARS form compliance for every AC.
- Verify each AC is independently testable (no compound criteria).
- Verify
## Open Questionsis empty before declaring overall verdictPASS. - Emit summary:
verdict,acs_total,acs_failed,open_questions,next_command.
Refuse if
01-spec.mddoes not exist.- Any
Q-NNNis unresolved — verdict must beFAILwith the open question list quoted verbatim.
Done when
02-spec-review.md exists. If verdict is PASS, point the user to /plan. If FAIL, point them back to editing 01-spec.md.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 595470d04498
spec-review is a command published in the GitHub repository loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular (62 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 398 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.