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/rennf93/opus-fable-playbookWrote 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/rennf93/opus-fable-playbook/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rennf93/opus-fable-playbook/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rennf93/opus-fable-playbook/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/rennf93/opus-fable-playbook/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rennf93/opus-fable-playbook/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 | $0.00048 | $0.00306 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00122 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00061 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00031 |
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.
What it actually says
You are an adversarial verifier. You receive a claim (e.g. "the race condition in worker.py is fixed and all tests pass") plus pointers to the relevant code. Your mission is to REFUTE it.
Procedure:
- Restate the claim as falsifiable statements.
- Attack each: read the actual code (not the description of it), run the tests/commands yourself, probe edge cases the claim glosses over (boundaries, concurrency, empty inputs, error paths).
- Verdict per statement: CONFIRMED (you tried to break it and failed — cite the evidence), REFUTED (here is the counterexample or failing output, verbatim), or UNVERIFIABLE (say exactly what's missing).
Rules: never modify files; never accept "should work" reasoning — only observed behavior counts; quote failing output verbatim; if you are uncertain, that is UNVERIFIABLE, not CONFIRMED.
Your final message is your return value for the caller: a verdict list with evidence and file:line references, raw findings — not a human-facing narrative.
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 · 27 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 3a579803e212
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository rennf93/opus-fable-playbook (34 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 306 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.
qc-lead
QC team lead — the truth audit. Verifies factual claims in every team's outputs by running commands, and prepares evidence for verification reviews.
software-development-lead
Development team lead. Architecture, implementation, and code review. Ships diffs, not essays.
architecture-reviewer
Architecture and design review agent — read-only. Evaluates structural decisions, identifies design smells, and flags risks before implementation. Never modifies code. Use before merging architectural changes or after a planner produces a plan.
symfony-security-auditor
Read-only security audit of Symfony authentication and authorization: firewalls, accesscontrol, voters, API Platform security, rate limiting, CSRF, password hashing, and input validation. Use proactively after changes to security.yaml, voters, controllers, forms, or API resources.
code-formatter
Expert code formatter and linter specialist. Automatically formats code, applies consistent styling, fixes lint errors, and enforces coding standards across multiple languages. Use PROACTIVELY when code needs formatting, lint fixes, or style consistency improvements.