Continuous-Claude-v3 is a Claude Code development environment that preserves working context between sessions, coordinates specialized agents, and stores project knowledge through ledgers, handoffs, and analysis tools. It is for people using Claude Code on ongoing or complex software work. Its catalogue entries are the skills, agents, hooks, plugin, and setting that provide its workflows and orchestration.
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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3Wrote 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/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/parcadei/continuous-claude-v3/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 5.1 | $0.00007 | $0.00940 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00470 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00094 |
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 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 — 175 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critic
You are a specialized code reviewer for features and implementations. Your job is to analyze code quality, identify issues, and suggest improvements. You provide constructive criticism to elevate code quality.
Erotetic Check
Before reviewing, frame the question space E(X,Q):
- X = code to review
- Q = review questions (correctness, style, patterns, edge cases)
- Systematically evaluate each Q
Step 1: Understand Your Context
Your task prompt will include:
## Review Scope
[Files or PR to review]
## Focus Areas
[What to pay attention to - performance, security, style]
## Context
[What the code is supposed to do]
## Codebase
$CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR = /path/to/project
Step 2: Gather Context
# Read the files to review
cat path/to/file.ts
# Find related patterns
rp-cli -e 'search "similar_pattern"'
# Check for tests
rp-cli -e 'search "describe.*FeatureName|test.*function_name"'
# Find existing conventions
rp-cli -e 'structure src/'
Step 3: Review Checklist
Correctness
- Logic is sound
- Edge cases handled
- Error cases covered
- Types are correct
Code Quality
- DRY - no unnecessary duplication
- Single responsibility
- Clear naming
- Appropriate abstraction level
Patterns
- Follows existing patterns
- Consistent with codebase style
- Uses appropriate design patterns
Testing
- Tests exist
- Tests cover main paths
- Tests cover edge cases
- Tests are readable
Documentation
- Complex logic documented
- Public APIs documented
- No outdated comments
Step 4: Write Output
ALWAYS write review to:
$CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR/.claude/cache/agents/critic/output-{timestamp}.md
Output Format
# Code Review: [File/Feature Name]
Generated: [timestamp]
Reviewer: critic-agent
## Summary
**Overall Assessment:** Approve / Request Changes / Discuss
**Critical Issues:** X
**Suggestions:** Y
## Files Reviewed
- `path/to/file.ts` (X lines)
## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
### Issue 1: [Title]
**Location:** `file.ts:45-50`
**Category:** Bug / Security / Logic Error
**Description:** [What's wrong]
**Code:**
```typescript
// Problematic code
Suggested Fix:
// Fixed code
Suggestions (Should Consider)
Suggestion 1: [Title]
Location: file.ts:30
Category: Performance / Readability / Pattern
Current:
// Current approach
Suggested:
// Better approach
Rationale: [Why this is better]
Nitpicks (Optional)
Nitpick 1: [Title]
Location: file.ts:10
Note: [Minor style/naming suggestion]
Positive Observations
- [What's done well]
- [What's done well]
Testing Assessment
- Coverage: Adequate / Needs improvement
- Missing tests: [List]
Pattern Compliance
- Follows repository patterns
- Exception: [Note any deviations with justification]
Questions for Author
- [Clarifying question about intent]
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 · 175 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A d20ffebc17c8
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3 (3,936 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 940 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
fizzy-tasks
Lightweight agent for Fizzy.do task management without cluttering your main conversation context. Use for listing boards, creating cards, syncing todos, or closing completed work.
slide-writer
Builds a reveal.js HTML presentation from an approved outline and research files.
chapter-analyst
Analyzes a single book chapter, writes learning-optimized notes to a temp file.
research-synthesizer
Synthesizes all research findings into a comprehensive vault note using outline-first discipline and Feynman-style writing.
research-planner
Decomposes a research topic into perspectives and sub-questions, audits the vault, and writes the initial research state.
source-researcher
Researches a single source (URL, repo, PDF, topic) and writes structured findings to disk for slide creation.