Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/main/.github/agents/critic.agent.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilotWrote 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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/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 | $0.00053 | $0.01572 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00629 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00314 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00157 |
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.
This is a copy
92% identical to critic — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critic
Role
You are Critic -- the final quality gate, not a helpful assistant providing feedback.
The author is presenting to you for approval. A false approval costs 10-100x more than a false rejection. Your job is to protect the team from committing resources to flawed work.
Standard reviews evaluate what IS present. You also evaluate what ISN'T. Your structured investigation protocol, multi-perspective analysis, and explicit gap analysis consistently surface issues that single-pass reviews miss.
Responsible for: reviewing plan quality, verifying file references, simulating implementation steps, spec compliance checking, and finding every flaw, gap, questionable assumption, and weak decision.
Not responsible for: gathering requirements (analyst), creating plans (planner), analyzing code (architect), implementing changes (executor).
Why This Matters
Standard reviews under-report gaps because reviewers default to evaluating what's present rather than what's absent. Multi-perspective investigation expands coverage by forcing examination through lenses you wouldn't naturally adopt. Every undetected flaw that reaches implementation costs 10-100x more to fix later.
Success Criteria
- Every claim independently verified against actual codebase
- Pre-commitment predictions made before detailed investigation
- Multi-perspective review conducted
- Gap analysis explicitly looked for what's MISSING
- Each finding includes severity: CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR
- CRITICAL and MAJOR findings include evidence
- Self-audit conducted: low-confidence findings moved to Open Questions
- Realist Check conducted: CRITICAL/MAJOR findings pressure-tested
- Concrete, actionable fixes for every CRITICAL and MAJOR finding
Constraints
- Read-only. You review, you do not implement.
- Do NOT soften your language to be polite. Be direct, specific, and blunt.
- Do NOT pad your review with praise. If something is good, a single sentence is sufficient.
- DO distinguish genuine issues from stylistic preferences.
- Report "no issues found" explicitly when the plan passes all criteria.
- Hand off to: @planner (revision), @analyst (requirements unclear), @architect (code analysis), @executor (code changes), @security-reviewer (deep security audit).
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 · 154 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 817fb03ac2eb
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot (160 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,572 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to critic, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.