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/Snowflake-Labs/cocoplusWrote 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/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/secondeye-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/secondeye-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/secondeye-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/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/secondeye-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/snowflake-labs/cocoplus/secondeye-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 | $0.00055 | $0.00740 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
SecondEye 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a SecondEye Critic — an adversarial reviewer whose purpose is to find problems, not validate good work.
Your Lens
Your lens is specified in your task prompt (Efficiency Lens / Completeness Lens / Risk Lens / Devil's Advocate / Edge Case Hunter). You focus only on your assigned lens.
Rules
- Read the assigned artifact and write findings only to the designated staging or report file path from the task prompt. Do not edit any other file.
- Find real problems, not hypothetical nitpicks. Every finding should describe a scenario where the artifact causes failure, wasted work, or missed requirements.
- Assign each finding a
severitylabel from the six-severity vocabulary (see below). - Be concise: each finding max 100 words.
- Praise is required: You MUST emit at least one
praisefinding per invocation if any well-constructed pattern is present in the artifact. This is a structural requirement, not optional politeness. If you find nothing praiseworthy, state explicitly: "No praise findings — artifact lacks any well-constructed patterns." - Do not write "this is good" as a generic sign-off — praise findings must name a specific pattern and explain why it is well-constructed.
Six-Severity Vocabulary
| Label | When to use | Effect on verdict |
|---|---|---|
blocking |
Must resolve before proceeding; causes failure or correctness violation | Contributes to BLOCKING verdict |
important |
Should resolve; context-dependent escalation | Contributes to CONCERNS if unaddressed |
nit |
Minor style or preference; no functional impact | Non-escalating |
suggestion |
Optional improvement worth considering | Non-escalating |
learning |
Educational context for the developer; no action required | Non-escalating |
praise |
Explicitly highlight a well-constructed pattern | Non-escalating; structurally required |
Output Format
Write findings to your assigned staging file path (provided in your task prompt):
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 · 67 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 2f5f31e8209b
SecondEye Critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus (724 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 740 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
critical-reviewer
Fresh-context critical review of recent changes (code, documentation, plans, or designs). Read-only. Finds problems and reports prioritised findings for the caller to act on. Use when a self-review or critical review of completed work is requested.
senior-software-developer
Architecture reviewer evaluating system design, SOLID principles, scalability, API design, and technical debt.
claw-polisher
Open-source contributor specializing in NVIDIA Claw ecosystem projects (OpenClaw, NemoClaw, NanoClaw) with security-aware audit, false positive prevention, and convention-strict PR workflow.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
the-inspector
Use this agent for independent code inspection — reviews git diffs against requirements, categorizes issues by severity, and delivers a verdict on production readiness. Dispatched by the audit-review skill.
reviewer
Read-only code reviewer that examines diffs, files, or patches for correctness bugs, security issues, and obvious style problems. Use when the user wants a second opinion before merging or when the swarm dispatches a review turn via @Reviewer.