spectre-code_review

spectre-code_review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from joenandez/spectre. It costs 54 tokens per session (1,160 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A final adversarial code review that tries to find correctness, safety, production-readiness, and requirement failures in completed changes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it at the final review boundary to inspect changed files, related code, tests, and requirements against an identified change set.
Why use it?
It challenges the implementation instead of assuming it works, helping expose bugs or missing behavior before delivery.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for Claude Code and Codex: user-invocable in frontmatter, but also runs codex exec. Also seen: mentions subagents; mentions Claude Code; mentions Codex.

Good fit Use it at the final review boundary to inspect changed files, related code, tests, and requirements against an identified change set.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/joenandez/spectre/spectre-code_review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add joenandez/spectre --skill spectre-code_review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joenandez/spectre

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for spectre-code_review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joenandez/spectre/spectre-code_review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/joenandez/spectre/spectre-code_review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joenandez/spectre/spectre-code_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joenandez/spectre/spectre-code_review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 54 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,160 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00054 $0.01160
Opus 5 $0.00027 $0.00580
Sonnet 5 $0.00011 $0.00232
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00116

Measured 3d ago against content hash 9e2a0ab5aadf, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

spectre-code_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 3d 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.

plugins/spectre-codex/skills/spectre-code_review/SKILL.md · 53 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

code_review

Purpose

Try to prove the work wrong, unsafe, unreachable, or unable to meet requirements. Accept correctness only if evidence survives adversarial scrutiny; never defend the implementation.

Inputs

  • $ARGUMENTS: feature/root or descendant artifact, focus, diff/base range, source-plan path, immutable BASE_SHA/HEAD_SHA/DIFF_SHA256 tuple, and --orchestrated.
  • Scope: completed changes, changed files, direct dependencies/importers, tests, and requirements/ACs. Source requirements from matching tasks.json parents, else an explicit source-plan path before plan.md, then request+diff. execute.md only locates tasks.

Working Set

  • Reuse a managed FEATURE_ROOT only when explicit/current-thread evidence ties it to this work (physical directory wins; never branch/recency/lifecycle/scans); distinct work ignores ambient roots. Otherwise, including on collision, standalone MUST first load and follow Skill(spectre-feature-root) through DONE; orchestrated calls escalate. Keep writes beneath it and pass it unchanged.
  • Repair stale feature/root metadata in artifacts this review touches.
  • REVIEW_REPORT={FEATURE_ROOT}/reviews/comprehensive_code_review.md; replace it for the current candidate. Git history preserves prior decisions without accumulating sibling reports.
  • Late-bind diff/base and tuple, changed files, requirement/AC paths and task ids, dependencies/importers, tests, and exclusions. Reviewers read diffs/task graphs.

Outputs + DONE

REVIEW_REPORT follows references/adversarial-review.md: bounded scope and tuple; verdict; evidence-backed findings; coverage; per-requirement delivery; scope/dead-path audits; actions; route metadata.

DONE when schema validation passes; scope/tuple are unchanged; every requirement/AC has one evidence-backed status; audit and route metadata exist; findings satisfy identity/evidence rules; and only the report changed.

Method / guardrails

  1. Dispatch the fixed review prompt. Read references/adversarial-review.md and send it verbatim to one fresh reviewer, followed only by structured context: feature/root and REVIEW_REPORT; focus; immutable diff/base tuple; requirement/AC source paths and ids; changed files, direct dependencies/importers, and tests; exclusions; route metadata and fallback reason. Reviewers read the supplied diffs/task graphs; the primary does not paraphrase or augment the template.
  2. Use one external-first review route from repo root; do not probe alternatives. Codex primary runs: claude -p --model opus --effort high --permission-mode dontAsk --allowedTools "Read,Grep,Glob,LS,Bash(mkdir -p *),Bash(git diff *),Bash(git show *),Bash(git status *),Bash(git rev-parse *),Write" --output-format text "$REVIEW_PROMPT" Claude primary runs: codex exec -C "$PWD" -m gpt-5.6-sol -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' -s workspace-write "$REVIEW_PROMPT" Record route metadata as Claude Code|opus|high|Codex -> Claude Code or Codex|gpt-5.6-sol|high|Claude Code -> Codex. Keep a 20-minute launcher-side poll limit; do not pass duration guidance to the reviewer. Quiet output is not failure. The reviewer writes only REVIEW_REPORT. Primary semantic self-review is prohibited.
  3. Fallback once. Missing/non-zero opposing CLI, report-write failure, or unusable review permits one clean-context @spectre_reviewer with the same verbatim template and structured context. It returns the report in-thread for unchanged persistence. Record native-subagent|runtime-native|inherited|native-fallback plus reason. A usable review ends semantic review.
  4. Verify deterministically. A candidate tuple requires all fields and canonical hash recomputation with git diff --binary --full-index --no-ext-diff --no-color --no-renames before dispatch and after report creation; mismatch makes the report stale. Validate the template's required sections, scope, exhaustive delivery coverage, and metadata. The primary may mechanically normalize report-only counts, paths, citations, metadata, sections/tables, and severity enums from existing reviewer semantics, but may not originate or materially reinterpret findings. An unusable native report remains incomplete.

Read the full file on GitHub · 53 lines

Files

What ships with it

1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago Changed · -12 lines 9e2a0ab5aadf
  2. 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A afd7d54c78ea

Subscribe to this mod's changes

spectre-code_review is a skill published in the GitHub repository joenandez/spectre (158 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,160 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.