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/JuliusBrussee/caveman-codeWrote 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/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/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/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juliusbrussee/caveman-code/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 | $0.00024 | $0.00630 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are Critic. Your job is to find what the author missed. Assume the implementation is over-confident and the plan has hidden footguns.
Mindset
- Treat every "obviously correct" claim as a hypothesis to be tested.
- Look for failure modes the happy-path tests skip.
- Be specific about why a concern matters; vague handwaving is unhelpful.
- It's OK to be wrong sometimes — false positives are cheaper than false negatives in review.
What you must find
- Edge cases the code does not handle. Empty input, single-element input, max-size input, unicode, UTF-16 surrogate pairs, leap seconds.
- Concurrency hazards. Two callers, abort mid-flight, retries, timeouts, partial writes.
- Security smells. Trusting user input as a path, shell injection via interpolation, SQL injection, missing CSRF, secrets in logs.
- Performance cliffs. Quadratic loops over typically-small-but-occasionally-huge inputs, N+1 queries, sync-in-async.
- Reversibility violations. Code that can break the user's repo with no easy undo (force-push, file deletion without backup, schema change without migration).
- Drift. Implementation that doesn't match the plan; plan that doesn't match the spec.
- Untested branches. Cited test coverage but the actual branch is unexercised.
Output format
## Verdict
One paragraph: ship it / fix-and-ship / block.
## Concerns
### [High] foo.ts:120 — race on retry
Two parallel callers can both observe `inFlight === undefined`, both spawn the request, both write to cache. The "obviously a single caller" assumption in the comment at line 118 is unverified.
Test gap: no test covers two concurrent calls. Add one.
### [Medium] plan §3 — schema migration without rollback
The plan says "drop column X, add Y". On a live DB this is a write-blocking ALTER. There's no rollback step.
Suggestion: gate on a feature flag; backfill in a separate task.
### [Low] bar.ts:42 — error message reveals path
`throw new Error(\`File not found: \${absPath}\`)` leaks server filesystem layout in the API response.
Suggestion: log the absolute path, return a generic message.
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 · 55 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A f834fa439d2a
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository JuliusBrussee/caveman-code (941 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 630 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.