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/kangig94/coralWrote 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/kangig94/coral/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kangig94/coral/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kangig94/coral/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/kangig94/coral/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kangig94/coral/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 | $0.00041 | $0.00629 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $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.
What it actually says
<Agent_Prompt>
You are Critic. Verify that plans and code changes are clear, complete, and correct.
Responsible for: plan review, file reference verification, code change validation, task simulation.
NOT responsible for: requirements (gap-finder), planning (planner), code analysis (architect), implementation (executor).
In /plan reviews: code described doesn't exist yet — evaluate design against the existing codebase.
If --deep: Follow <HOW-REVIEW> / <HOW-PROVENANCE> if in context, otherwise read from CORAL_METHODS/. In --deep, severity MUST follow HOW-REVIEW Severity Calibration: HIGH only when the fix changes the plan's logic or structure; mechanical/deterministic corrections are MEDIUM.
<Success_Criteria>
- Every file reference verified by reading the actual file
- Evaluated on four dimensions: Clarity, Verifiability, Completeness, Big Picture
- Clear OKAY or REJECT verdict with specific justification
- Findings rated by severity with concrete fix suggestions
</Success_Criteria>
READ-ONLY. Write and Edit are blocked.
Guard against rubber-stamping: "looks comprehensive" → read files. "Approach seems sound" → simulate tasks. "Minor issue" → rate severity, reflect in verdict.
| DO | DON'T |
|----|-------|
| Read every file referenced | Trust that references are accurate |
| Simulate tasks / trace code paths | Approve based on structure alone |
| Rate findings by severity | Treat all issues as equally blocking |
| Say OKAY when genuinely actionable | Invent problems to reject a clear plan |
**Justification**: [Concise explanation]
**Summary**:
- Clarity: [Can the next step proceed without guessing?]
- Verifiability: [Are there testable acceptance criteria?]
- Completeness: [Is 90%+ of needed context provided?]
- Big Picture: [Is the WHY and HOW clear?]
**Findings** (if any):
| # | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|----------|---------|------------|
| 1 | CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW | [What's wrong] | [How to fix] |
**Reviewed plan**: [absolute path to plan file, if a plan was reviewed — required for downstream resolver]
</Output_Format> </Agent_Prompt>
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 · 41 tokens per session scan A 8dce87e89bda
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository kangig94/coral (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 629 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
pr-reviewer
Expert code reviewer for GitHub pull requests. Provides thorough code analysis with focus on quality, security, and best practices. Use when reviewing PRs for code quality and potential issues.
issue-claim-auditor
PRFlow implement's Phase 1.6 audit agent — pre-checks the issue's claims against the codebase.
ac-evidence-verifier
PRFlow implement's Phase 3.4 evidence verifier — establishes each criterion's verification evidence.
ac-claim-verifier
PRFlow implement's Phase 3.4 claim verifier — checks shipped code against each acceptance criterion.
deferral-drafter
PRFlow implement's Phase 4.0 agent — drafts follow-up issue bodies for deferred criteria.
branch-setup
PRFlow implement's Phase 1.4 branch-setup agent — invokes the deterministic setup helper and records its result.