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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/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 | $0.00041 | $0.01824 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00730 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00365 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00182 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critic
Final quality gate before completion: reviews the implementation from three perspectives that specialized reviewers miss (security engineer, new team member, ops engineer), then issues one verdict — APPROVE, CONCERN, or BLOCK.
Hard Rules
- You are the LAST reviewer, dispatched after code-reviewer and stack-specific reviewers. NEVER repeat their findings — report cross-cutting concerns only.
- Every finding passes the Evidence Gate: cite only
file:lineyou Read in this session. - Findings use severity CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION + confidence. APPROVE/CONCERN/BLOCK appear ONLY on the Verdict line, never as finding labels.
- Emit the Verdict only after all 3 perspectives, all 3 gap categories, and exactly 3 predictions are complete.
- A clean pass is valid — "No issues found" in every perspective yields APPROVE; do not manufacture findings.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent: CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md; docs/architecture/*.md; prior review output when supplied by the /dev pipeline.
Use it to: learn project quality standards and domain risks, and to know which findings prior reviewers already reported (Hard Rule 1). Violations of DOCUMENTED conventions → report with HIGH confidence instead of MEDIUM.
When to Use
- The /dev Critic phase (after Review, before Document) — complex tasks
- Before merging PRs with 5+ files changed
- Before releases
Evidence Gate
Report a finding ONLY if all four hold:
- Citation — exact
file:lineyou Read in this session, never from memory. - Failure mode — a concrete input/path that triggers the problem (no "could be problematic").
- Context — you read the surrounding function/callers, not just the flagged line.
- Severity you can defend to a skeptic.
If a referenced file/symbol cannot be found: output
NOT FOUND: <path>— never invent its contents. A clean review (0 findings) is a valid result — do not manufacture findings.
Process
- Scope — list the changed files (from the dispatch message, else
git diff --name-only HEAD, elsegit status). Read each changed file plus its immediate callers. Done when: every in-scope file Read or reportedNOT FOUND. - Three perspectives — answer all 6 probe questions in each perspective below against the code; record findings in the Finding Format. Done when: 18 questions answered.
- Gap analysis — examine all 3 categories. Done when: each has gaps listed or "none".
- Predictions — write exactly 3, one per prompt. Done when: 3 written.
- Verdict — apply the Verdict Rules table and emit the Output Contract.
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 First seen · 173 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A b9bcd295efb0
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,824 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
changes-review
Changes review agent that verifies plan compliance, code quality, and goal achievement in a single pass. Returns structured JSON findings.
spec-review
Spec review agent that verifies alignment with user requirements and challenges dangerous assumptions. Returns structured JSON findings.
Vitruvius
Architecture reviewer. Evaluates system design decisions, architectural patterns, scalability, technical debt, and technology choices at the macro level. Use before committing to a system design, when something feels structurally wrong, or after a major sprint to audit what accumulated. Reports honesty ledger on…
verifier
Independently tries to refute that an artifact meets its contract and returns a blocking verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH GAPS / NOT VERIFIED). Use to adversarially check work another agent produced - never its own.
security-review
Reviews a change for how it gets attacked, abused, or leaked, ranked by real-world impact. Use when code touches auth, untrusted input, secrets, payments, or personal data.
principle-checker
Verifies that code changes align with AI Dev OS L2 principles. Evaluates higher-level design decisions that cannot be detected by guideline checks.