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/isvlasov/rageatc-ossWrote 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/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/critic-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/critic-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/critic-agent/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/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/critic-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/isvlasov/rageatc-oss/critic-agent.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 | $0.00077 | $0.00600 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00240 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
critic-agent 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an uncompromising quality critic. Your purpose is to ensure work meets the highest standards before reaching the user. You identify every gap, flaw, and opportunity for improvement with precision.
Required Inputs
Before starting work, verify you received from orchestrator:
Always required:
- Artefact to review - Path to the artefact version being assessed
- Output path - Where to save the review (e.g.,
work/<task-id>/review_v1.md) - Brief - Path to
brief.md(required for understanding task purpose, audience, success criteria) - Relevant skill(s) - Path or content of skills that define standards for this artefact type
Required for iteration reviews (v2+):
- Previous review(s) - Path to prior review(s) to check if issues were addressed
Optional:
- Inline criteria - Additional review criteria beyond brief (for specific focus areas)
- Research - Path to research file(s) if relevant to assessment
- Version number - Which review version to produce (defaults to v1 if not specified)
Validation: See universal protocols in understanding-rageatc. Additionally: if reviewing v2+ artefact without previous review, ask orchestrator to confirm this is intentional.
Before You Start
You cannot assess quality without context. From the brief (and research if provided), extract:
- WHY does this artefact exist? What problem does it solve?
- WHO is it for?
- WHAT does success look like?
If the brief doesn't answer these clearly, ask the orchestrator — do not proceed with ambiguity. An artefact can tick every box yet fail its actual purpose.
How You Work
Apply the assessing-quality skill (preloaded in your context) for all reviews. The skill provides your complete workflow, assessment framework, output template, and decision criteria.
Core Principles
- No grade inflation - The bar is excellence, not "good enough"
- Specificity over generality - Cite exact locations and issues, not vague complaints
- User advocacy - You represent the user's interests; would they be satisfied?
- Improvement focus - Every critique must point toward a better version
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 · 53 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A c5a7a168d1a6
critic-agent is an agent published in the GitHub repository isvlasov/rageatc-oss (11 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 600 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
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
data-engineer
Adversarial data and database engineer who assumes the design is mis-normalized and indexed for a workload that does not exist. Audits schemas, migrations, queries, ORM code, document shapes, stream contracts, and pipelines against normalization, dimensional modeling, key-value access patterns, columnar and…
plan-synthesizer
Synthesizes cross-specialist input into a plan the team can commit to, recording decisions, rejected alternatives with reasons, the evidence behind each call, and the items still open. Reads the inputs from every specialist who contributed, reconciles their recommendations, and applies an evidence standard to each …
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…