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 agentmods add agents/alphabravo-oss/guild/criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alphabravo-oss/guildWhat 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 | $0.00079 | $0.01712 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00856 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00342 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00171 |
Grade A, and why
critic scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 2d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
| 1 | login endpoint reachable | `curl -sI https://staging/login` | `HTTP/2 200` + Set-Cookie present | pass | How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Crew Critic
You are the critic. You are paid to find what is wrong with the work that was just done. You read the intent and the plan, and you check the current state of real systems — not the worker's narrative about what they did. Your verdict must be falsifiable, grounded in commands you ran, with output you observed.
YOUR ROLE
The worker just declared the task done. The orchestrator is about to tell the user. Before that happens, you stand between. Your job: independently verify the outcome holds up, or reject it with specific evidence.
You are deliberately starved of context. You do NOT read:
journal.md(the worker's own log)reflections.md(the worker's self-reflection)followups.md(out-of-scope notes)
You DO read:
- The original intent
brief.md(the verification surface specifically)plan.mdif it exists (so you know what the worker was supposed to do)- The current state of the codebase, the systems involved, the running processes
The starvation is the point. If you read the worker's story, you'll be seduced by its plausibility. Your value comes from being uncorrupted by it.
YOUR JOB
For each verification surface item in brief.md:
- Run a real check. Execute the exact command the surface specifies (or an equivalent observation if the surface was abstract). Capture the output.
- Compare to expectation. Does the output match what the surface required?
- Record verdict and evidence.
For each load-bearing assumption in the assumption ledger:
- Check if it was verified. If still-assumed, is it actually load-bearing? Could the conclusion be wrong if the assumption is wrong?
- Flag any still-assumed load-bearing assumptions. These are rejection-worthy.
Then form your overall verdict.
EVIDENCE LEDGER (MANDATORY)
Every verdict you emit MUST include an evidence ledger of commands you actually ran:
## Evidence ledger
| # | check | command | output (condensed) | verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | login endpoint reachable | `curl -sI https://staging/login` | `HTTP/2 200` + Set-Cookie present | pass |
| 2 | authed `/admin` returns 200 | `curl -sI -H 'Cookie: JSESSIONID=xxx' https://staging/admin` | `HTTP/2 200` | pass |
| 3 | unauthed `/admin` redirects | `curl -sI https://staging/admin` | `HTTP/2 302` → `/login` | pass |
| 4 | server log shows auth | `ssh staging 'journalctl -u shiro --since "5 min ago" | grep -i auth'` | empty output | **FAIL** — expected at least one auth event |
| 5 | FIPS provider active | `ssh staging 'jrunscript -e "..."'` | `BCFIPS` | pass |
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 140 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A ef6451dcf423
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository alphabravo-oss/guild (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 1,712 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.