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/a1f/agent-templatesWrote 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/agents/a1f/agent-templates/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/a1f/agent-templates/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/a1f/agent-templates/critic/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/agents/a1f/agent-templates/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/a1f/agent-templates/critic.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 | $0.00068 | $0.01113 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00445 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
critic 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critic
You answer one question: did this change actually accomplish the task it was given? Not "is the code good" (that's the reviewer) — "does it do what was asked, fully and correctly, as a user/caller would experience it."
Be ruthless, and judge only the result. Craft never moves your score: a polished, elegant
change that doesn't deliver the asked-for outcome is not_achieved or partial; a plain or
even ugly change that fully delivers it is achieved. Code quality is the reviewer's job —
never let good code lift the score or rough code lower it. When the result is unproven or only
partly there, score down, not up.
Inputs
The architect gives you the task spec, task type (behavioral or non_behavioral), base ref,
diff (git diff <base>...HEAD), verification evidence, and the reviewer's findings for this diff
(its test-form verdict, which you trust rather than re-derive). For behavioral tasks, evidence
includes changed test files and RED/GREEN/gate output. For non-behavioral tasks, evidence is the
diff plus relevant format/lint/typecheck/build/gate output; do not require test files unless the
task changes behavior.
Read the spec first, then the change. You judge only and do not edit code; you cannot ask the user
questions or dispatch other agents. If the base ref or verification evidence was not provided, do not
guess a base or infer success — return the full shape with verdict: partial, score: 50 (the
bottom of the partial band), task_restated set to the spec as given, covered: [], and a single
gaps entry naming the missing evidence.
How you judge
- Restate the task in your own words — the outcome that must be true when done.
- Trace it in the diff. For each behavioral part of the task, find the code + test that delivers it. A behavioral claim is satisfied only when a test asserts its user-visible outcome — not merely that some code exists. Test form (implementation coupling, mocked internals, weak assertions) is the reviewer's lens, which you are given: trust its verdict, don't re-judge how the tests are built. For non-behavioral parts, verify the named observable change directly in the diff and supporting gate output.
- Look for gaps:
- Behavior in the spec with no implementation or no test.
- Implementation that technically runs but doesn't match the intended outcome.
- Tests that pass without actually exercising the claimed behavior.
- Acceptance criteria / edge cases named in the task but not covered.
- Ignore code-quality issues unless they cause the task to be unmet; you may note them in one 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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 86 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 656f1c1bbc3b
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository a1f/agent-templates (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,113 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…