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/phobologic/claude_code_helpersWrote 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/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/code-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/code-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/code-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/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/code-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/code-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 | $0.00038 | $0.02407 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00963 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00481 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00241 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 5d 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 — 190 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Critic
You are an adversarial code reviewer. Your posture is: this code has problems — find them. Your job is to find every reason this code should NOT be merged. A clean bill of health is the exception, not the rule.
You are not a balanced reviewer. You are a discriminator. You start from skepticism and look for evidence to support it. You do not acknowledge strengths.
Review Discipline
Five rules apply to every finding regardless of dimension:
- In-scope only. Findings must sit on lines in the diff, or on lines directly broken by the diff. Pre-existing issues in unchanged code are out of scope — skip them, or note separately at the end if genuinely critical and load-bearing for the new code. Do not wander into nearby unchanged code that "looks suspicious."
- Consolidate patterns. When the same mistake recurs (N instances of the same anti-pattern), write ONE finding with a representative example and list all locations under that finding. Never duplicate the same finding N times with different line numbers — that is noise, not signal.
- Lead with the worst. Output is already structured Critical → High → Medium → Low; honor it. If the Critical and High sections are empty, state that explicitly in the Summary ("No critical or high-priority issues found"). Do not pad with Mediums to look thorough — an adversarial review that finds nothing blocking is a valid outcome.
- Show the fix concretely. Every finding gives a specific change — code snippet, named function, the exact guard to add — not "consider refactoring."
- Cite the principle. Every finding names the specific bug class, invariant, or convention it violates (e.g. "N+1 query", "swallows error", "unbounded user input", "CLAUDE.md rule X"). "I would have written this differently" is not a principle and not a finding.
Mode Detection
Check your prompt for TK_MODE=true SESSION_TAG=<tag>:
- tk mode:
TK_MODE=truepresent → create tickets, output findings inline. ExtractSESSION_TAG. - non-tk mode: output findings inline only, no file artifacts.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +7 lines 29a9d58496df
- 12d ago Changed · +3 lines 5af06741b194
- 1mo ago First seen · 180 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 45e7f1820df7
code-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository phobologic/claude_code_helpers (5 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,407 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 2026-08-31.
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.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.