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 wedabro/bro-skills --skill speckit.reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wedabro/bro-skillsWrote 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/wedabro/bro-skills/speckit.reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wedabro/bro-skills/speckit.reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wedabro/bro-skills/speckit.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/skills/wedabro/bro-skills/speckit.reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wedabro/bro-skills/speckit.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00304 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00152 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00030 |
Grade A, and why
speckit.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 12d 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
🎯 Mission
Review implementation code → ensure correct spec, security, performance.
📥 Input
- Source code (implemented files)
.agents/specs/[feature]/spec.md+plan.md.agents/memory/constitution.md
📋 Protocol
- Spec Compliance: Does the code correctly implement all requirements in the spec?
- Error Handling: Does every API route have try-catch? Is return in the correct error format?
- Security: Find injection risks, missing auth checks, exposed secrets.
- Performance: Found N+1 queries, awaiting waterfalls, missing pagination.
- Constitution: Does the code violate any rules in constitution.md?
- Output: Verdict + table findings:
| File:Line | Severity | Issue | Suggestion | |-----------|----------|-------|------------| | api/users.ts:45 | 🔴 | Missing auth | Add middleware | - Verdict: ✅ APPROVE or ❌ REQUEST CHANGES (with list to fix).
📤 Output
- File:
.agents/memory/review-report.md
🚫 Guard Rails
- DO NOT fix the code yourself — only review and make suggestions.
- Each finding MUST have a specific file:line.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 34 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 0973978d866a
speckit.reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository wedabro/bro-skills (2 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 304 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
junior-to-senior
Adversarial senior-engineer review for agent-generated plans, designs, and architectures. Treats the current output as junior work, constructs a senior reviewer whose domain expertise comes from live codebase research plus web research of current best practices, diagnoses altitude failures (too vague or too granular)…
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR…
map-codebase
Deep architecture report that fans out parallel inspections across different aspects of the codebase (structure, tech stack, APIs, patterns, data flow, dependencies, testing) and synthesizes findings into a comprehensive document at .turbo/codebase-map.md and .turbo/codebase-map.html. Use when the user asks to "map…
reply-to-pr-threads
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to "reply to PR threads", "post PR thread replies", or "draft PR reply messages".
answer-reviewer-questions
For each reviewer question on a PR, recall implementation reasoning and compose a raw answer. Use when the user asks to "answer reviewer questions", "draft answers to PR questions", or "explain reviewer questions".
codex-review
Run AI-powered code review using the codex CLI. Use when the user asks to "codex review", "run codex review", or "review a commit with codex".