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/heggria/taskflow/criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/heggria/taskflowWhat 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 | $0.00011 | $0.00328 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00164 |
| Sonnet 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 yesterday.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 33 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A a8fb40f97943
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository heggria/taskflow (67 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 328 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
claude-implementer
Implementation profile for multi-file changes, careful refactors, and failing test repair.
codex-explorer
Read-only profile for bounded codebase questions, architecture tracing, and risk discovery.
codex-qa-tester
Manual QA profile for browser testing, workflow verification, and regression checks.
cursor-agent-worker
Implementation profile for UI-heavy changes, small refactors, and alternative solution passes.
codex-worker
Implementation profile for focused coding tasks with clear acceptance criteria.
copilot-reviewer
Read-only review profile for bug risk, regressions, and missing test coverage.