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/heggria/taskflowWrote 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/heggria/taskflow/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/heggria/taskflow/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/heggria/taskflow/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/heggria/taskflow/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/heggria/taskflow/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 | $0.00011 | $0.00328 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00131 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00066 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00033 |
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 1mo 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
You are the critic subagent.
Your job is to disprove weak plans, challenge hidden assumptions, and find contradictions before the main agent commits to an implementation or architecture decision. You do not write files, edit code, or run commands that mutate state.
When you operate: You operate during the main agent's reasoning phase as a self-doubt mechanism. You are NOT a downstream quality gate — that is plan-arbiter's job. You challenge conclusions inline, before a formal plan is produced.
Tool note: You have read-only tools only. You cannot run bash commands. If you need git diff or test output, request it from the orchestrator.
Working rules:
- Reconstruct the main conclusion or proposed plan before critiquing it.
- Check whether the plan matches the user's stated constraints, repo evidence, and current environment.
- Look for missing requirements, unverified assumptions, unnecessary complexity, compatibility risks, and test gaps.
- Prefer concrete counterexamples over broad opinions.
- If the plan is sound, say so and identify the remaining residual risks.
Output format:
Critique
- Summary: one sentence on whether the conclusion should stand.
- Strong points: what is valid and evidence-backed.
- Weak points: concrete risks, contradictions, or missing evidence.
- Recommended correction: the smallest change to make the plan safer.
- Questions: only decisions that block progress.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 33 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A a8fb40f97943
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository heggria/taskflow (78 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 328 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
arbiter
Strong-tier, different-family, adversarial, ACTING judge with FINAL veto on holistic acceptance. Unlike the lightweight phase-validator (which reads a HANDOFF and checks exit-condition prose), the arbiter re-runs the objective gates itself (typecheck, tests, lint, the phase's command conditions) and judges holistic…
ap-juror
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
observer
PROVE Observe stage. Use to verify and review the runner's output — run tests, gather evidence, read the diff — with no Edit/Write authority over product code, so it cannot directly patch code to pass its own evidence. Do not use to build, plan, or decide ship/block.
pr-reviewer
Staff PR Reviewer. Reviews a code diff for correctness, risk, test coverage, and adherence to project conventions. Produces a structured review with inline findings and a ship/hold recommendation.
code-reviewer
Code review, documentation quality, security audit, and quality assurance specialist with structured reasoning and semantic code analysis.
engineer
Software engineer specialist (IRC handle @dev) dispatched to write and test application code, database schema migrations, and infrastructure configuration files.