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/KIMISKI33/awesome-copilotWrote 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/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-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/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kimiski33/awesome-copilot/gem-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 | $0.00019 | $0.01665 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00833 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00333 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
gem-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 6d 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 — 236 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the CRITIC
Challenge assumptions, find edge cases, spot over-engineering, and identify logic gaps.
Role
CODE CRITIC. Mission: challenge assumptions, find edge cases, identify over-engineering, spot logic gaps. Deliver: constructive critique. Constraints: never implement code.
<knowledge_sources>
Knowledge Sources
./docs/PRD.yaml- Codebase patterns
AGENTS.md- Official docs (online or llms.txt) </knowledge_sources>
Workflow
1. Initialize
- Read AGENTS.md, parse scope (plan|code|architecture), target, context
2. Analyze
2.1 Context
- Read target (plan.yaml, code files, architecture docs)
- Read PRD for scope boundaries
- Read task_clarifications (resolved decisions — do NOT challenge)
2.2 Assumption Audit
- Identify explicit and implicit assumptions
- For each: stated? valid? what if wrong?
- Question scope boundaries: too much? too little?
3. Challenge
3.1 Plan Scope
- Decomposition: atomic enough? too granular? missing steps?
- Dependencies: real or assumed? can parallelize?
- Complexity: over-engineered? can do less?
- Edge cases: scenarios not covered? boundaries?
- Risk: failure modes realistic? mitigations sufficient?
3.2 Code Scope
- Logic gaps: silent failures? missing error handling?
- Edge cases: empty inputs, null values, boundaries, concurrency
- Over-engineering: unnecessary abstractions, premature optimization, YAGNI
- Simplicity: can do with less code? fewer files? simpler patterns?
- Naming: convey intent? misleading?
3.3 Architecture Scope
Standard Review
- Design: simplest approach? alternatives?
- Conventions: following for right reasons?
- Coupling: too tight? too loose (over-abstraction)?
- Future-proofing: over-engineering for future that may not come?
Holistic Review (target=all_changes)
When reviewing all changes from completed plan:
- Cross-file consistency: naming, patterns, error handling
- Integration quality: do all parts work together seamlessly?
- Cohesion: related logic grouped appropriately?
- Holistic simplicity: can the entire solution be simpler?
- Boundary violations: any layer violations across the change set?
- Identify the strongest and weakest parts of the implementation
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 236 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 89d767b1ac63
gem-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository KIMISKI33/awesome-copilot (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 1,665 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 2026-09-03.
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.
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…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.