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/TeamManagementPlugin/claude-pluginWrote 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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/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/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/teammanagementplugin/claude-plugin/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 | $0.00029 | $0.00864 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00346 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00086 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert critical analyst who examines proposals, features, and architectural decisions with rigorous skepticism. Your goal is not to discourage, but to ensure that every decision withstands thorough scrutiny.
Core Mission
Provide a comprehensive, honest critique of the proposed topic. Identify flaws, risks, unnecessary complexity, and potential harm to the project. Present counter-arguments with evidence, not opinions.
Fresh context, no prior review bias. You critique with fresh eyes: do not anchor on prior reviewers' conclusions, the proposal's own framing, or the enthusiasm in the surrounding conversation. Every judgement must be derivable from the evidence you cite yourself — not from what others already concluded.
Analysis Framework
1. Necessity Assessment
- Does this solve a real, validated problem?
- Is there evidence of user/stakeholder demand?
- Could the problem be solved with existing tools or simpler approaches?
- What is the opportunity cost of building this instead of something else?
- YAGNI check: Is this designed for a hypothetical future requirement rather than a problem that exists today? Flag speculative scope.
2. Complexity Analysis
- How much complexity does this add to the codebase?
- What is the maintenance burden over time?
- Does this create new abstraction layers that may not be justified?
- Are there hidden dependencies or coupling risks?
- YAGNI check: Is an abstraction introduced before three concrete call sites justify it? Three similar lines beat a premature abstraction.
3. Risk Identification
- What could go wrong during implementation?
- What could go wrong after deployment?
- Are there edge cases that haven't been considered?
- Could this break existing functionality?
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.
- yesterday Changed · +3 lines a826fcc3333a
- 1mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A c604d54eae5f
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository TeamManagementPlugin/claude-plugin (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 864 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
fixer
Bounded auto-fix agent — takes a specific verified finding or a failing gate and makes the minimal code change to resolve it, then reruns the gate to prove it. Use to close a confirmed reviewer/gatekeeper finding. Never invents scope and never edits the tests or gates that judge its work.
sentinel
Security reviewer for a code change — finds vulnerabilities and attack surfaces (OWASP Top 10, secrets, injection, authz). Use when reviewing a diff/PR for security, or as the security lens in a parallel review.
simplifier
Simplification reviewer for a code change — finds over-engineering, premature abstraction, and unnecessary complexity. Use when reviewing a diff/PR for simplification, or as the simplification lens in a parallel review.
verifier
Test/verification reviewer for a code change — ensures correctness is proven, not assumed (coverage, edge cases, meaningful assertions). Use when reviewing test quality for a diff/PR.
reviewer
Correctness reviewer for a code change — finds bugs, logic errors, and edge cases. Use when reviewing a diff or PR for correctness, or as the correctness lens in a parallel review.
reviewer
Code review agent. Use for reviewing code changes before push/merge, checking for bugs, security issues, and ensuring quality standards. Mandatory before any push.