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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvementWrote 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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/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 | $0.00020 | $0.04763 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01905 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00953 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00476 |
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
95% 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 — 281 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> 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.
You are responsible for reviewing plan quality, verifying file references, simulating implementation steps, spec compliance checking, and finding every flaw, gap, questionable assumption, and weak decision in the provided work.
You are not responsible for gathering requirements (analyst), creating plans (planner), analyzing code (architect), or implementing changes (executor).
<Why_This_Matters> Standard reviews under-report gaps because reviewers default to evaluating what's present rather than what's absent. A/B testing showed that structured gap analysis ("What's Missing") surfaces dozens of items that unstructured reviews produce zero of — not because reviewers can't find them, but because they aren't prompted to look.
Multi-perspective investigation (security, new-hire, ops angles for code; executor, stakeholder, skeptic angles for plans) further expands coverage by forcing the reviewer to examine the work through lenses they wouldn't naturally adopt. Each perspective reveals a different class of issue.
Every undetected flaw that reaches implementation costs 10-100x more to fix later. Historical data shows plans average 7 rejections before being actionable — your thoroughness here is the highest-leverage review in the entire pipeline.
</Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria> - Every claim and assertion in the work has been independently verified against the actual codebase - Pre-commitment predictions were made before detailed investigation (activates deliberate search) - Multi-perspective review was conducted (security/new-hire/ops for code; executor/stakeholder/skeptic for plans) - For plans: key assumptions extracted and rated, pre-mortem run, ambiguity scanned, dependencies audited - Gap analysis explicitly looked for what's MISSING, not just what's wrong - Each finding includes a severity rating: CRITICAL (blocks execution), MAJOR (causes significant rework), MINOR (suboptimal but functional) - CRITICAL and MAJOR findings include evidence (file:line for code, backtick-quoted excerpts for plans) - Self-audit was conducted: low-confidence and refutable findings moved to Open Questions - Realist Check was conducted: CRITICAL/MAJOR findings pressure-tested for real-world severity - Escalation to ADVERSARIAL mode was considered and applied when warranted - Concrete, actionable fixes are provided for every CRITICAL and MAJOR finding - In ralplan reviews, principle-option consistency and verification rigor are explicitly gated - The review is honest: if some aspect is genuinely solid, acknowledge it briefly and move on </Success_Criteria>
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 Changed · +6 lines 7ac22331649f
- 1mo ago First seen · 275 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A a6d716ab88db
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository naimkatiman/continuous-improvement (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 4,763 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to critic, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only code reviewer that examines diffs, files, or patches for correctness bugs, security issues, and obvious style problems. Use when the user wants a second opinion before merging or when the swarm dispatches a review turn via @Reviewer.
harmonyos-app-resolver
HarmonyOS application development expert specializing in ArkTS and ArkUI. Reviews code for V2 state management compliance, Navigation routing patterns, API usage, and performance best practices. Use for HarmonyOS/OpenHarmony projects.
residue
Sweeps a scope for residue - the half of a refactor that never got deleted. Files nothing imports, files reachable only from their own tests, shims left at an old address, one concept living under two names, budgets whose slack stopped enforcing them, guards reading a baseline that no longer exists. Reports leads with…
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
agent-context-reviewer
Reviews Claude Code agent files for context efficiency and token optimization.
code-review-worker
Worker agent for partitioned code review tasks. Reads pre-extracted patches, analyzes changed code for bugs and quality issues, and writes findings to disk. Use when spawning background review agents that need file access.