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.
npx agentmods add agents/kirti12025/gitlab-mcp/criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kirti12025/gitlab-mcpWrote 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/kirti12025/gitlab-mcp/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kirti12025/gitlab-mcp/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kirti12025/gitlab-mcp/critic.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00053 | $0.01553 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00776 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00311 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00155 |
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 4d 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
100% identical to critic — 0 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 154 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 44d682d94c54
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository kirti12025/gitlab-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 1,553 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to critic, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.