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 skills add joenandez/spectre --skill spectre-code_reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/joenandez/spectreWrote 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/skills/joenandez/spectre/spectre-code_review)<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>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.01160 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00580 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00116 |
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.
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, immutableBASE_SHA/HEAD_SHA/DIFF_SHA256tuple, and--orchestrated.- Scope: completed changes, changed files, direct dependencies/importers, tests, and requirements/ACs. Source requirements from matching
tasks.jsonparents, else an explicit source-plan path beforeplan.md, then request+diff.execute.mdonly locates tasks.
Working Set
- Reuse a managed
FEATURE_ROOTonly 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 followSkill(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
- Dispatch the fixed review prompt. Read
references/adversarial-review.mdand send it verbatim to one fresh reviewer, followed only by structured context: feature/root andREVIEW_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. - 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 asClaude Code|opus|high|Codex -> Claude CodeorCodex|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 onlyREVIEW_REPORT. Primary semantic self-review is prohibited. - Fallback once. Missing/non-zero opposing CLI, report-write failure, or unusable review permits one clean-context
@spectre_reviewerwith the same verbatim template and structured context. It returns the report in-thread for unchanged persistence. Recordnative-subagent|runtime-native|inherited|native-fallbackplus reason. A usable review ends semantic review. - Verify deterministically. A candidate tuple requires all fields and canonical hash recomputation with
git diff --binary --full-index --no-ext-diff --no-color --no-renamesbefore 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.
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.
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.
- 3d ago Changed · -12 lines 9e2a0ab5aadf
- 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A afd7d54c78ea
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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…