critic

critic is an agent for Claude Code from RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit. It costs 41 tokens per session (1,824 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A final quality gate that reviews an implementation from security, new-team-member, and operations viewpoints. It produces one overall verdict: APPROVE, CONCERN, or BLOCK.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after other reviewers have finished, to check security gaps, onboarding clarity, operational risks, and likely problems before release.
Why use it?
It looks for cross-cutting risks that individual code reviews may miss before work is considered complete.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: model in frontmatter; mentions CLAUDE.md; mentions AGENTS.md.

Good fit Use it after other reviewers have finished, to check security gaps, onboarding clarity, operational risks, and likely problems before release.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/critic
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for critic

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/critic/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/critic)
Your own site
<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.

agentmods 80×15 button for critic

Your own site · 80×15
<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>
Per session 41 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,824 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce 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

Measured 1mo ago against content hash b9bcd295efb0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

packages/core/agents/critic.md · 173 lines

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

  1. You are the LAST reviewer, dispatched after code-reviewer and stack-specific reviewers. NEVER repeat their findings — report cross-cutting concerns only.
  2. Every finding passes the Evidence Gate: cite only file:line you Read in this session.
  3. Findings use severity CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION + confidence. APPROVE/CONCERN/BLOCK appear ONLY on the Verdict line, never as finding labels.
  4. Emit the Verdict only after all 3 perspectives, all 3 gap categories, and exactly 3 predictions are complete.
  5. 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:

  1. Citation — exact file:line you Read in this session, never from memory.
  2. Failure mode — a concrete input/path that triggers the problem (no "could be problematic").
  3. Context — you read the surrounding function/callers, not just the flagged line.
  4. 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

  1. Scope — list the changed files (from the dispatch message, else git diff --name-only HEAD, else git status). Read each changed file plus its immediate callers. Done when: every in-scope file Read or reported NOT FOUND.
  2. 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.
  3. Gap analysis — examine all 3 categories. Done when: each has gaps listed or "none".
  4. Predictions — write exactly 3, one per prompt. Done when: 3 written.
  5. Verdict — apply the Verdict Rules table and emit the Output Contract.

Read the full file on GitHub · 173 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 173 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A b9bcd295efb0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

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.