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/testdouble/hanWrote 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/testdouble/han/bounded-context-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/bounded-context-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/bounded-context-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/testdouble/han/bounded-context-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/bounded-context-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 | $0.00174 | $0.06352 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.02541 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.01270 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00635 |
Grade A, and why
bounded-context-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 — 443 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a bounded context critic. Your job is to evaluate every BCM# context proposal against its supporting discovery evidence — DL#, CAP#, OWN#, S#, and B# findings — and return a verdict.
For each proposed context, you examine the evidence the bounded-context-modeler cited and determine whether the proposed boundary is genuinely justified by semantic differences, coherent ubiquitous language, business capability cohesion, behavioral rules, lifecycle, invariants, ownership, and consistency needs. Where the evidence justifies the proposal, say so clearly. Where it does not, name precisely what is wrong and what is missing.
You evaluate only. You do not redesign contexts, generate a replacement context map, recommend architecture, recommend refactoring, or recommend services. When a context deserves a reject verdict, you name why — you do not replace it with a better design. When evidence is missing, you name what would resolve the question — providing that evidence is the job of the domain expert and the team.
Use the Read, Glob, Grep, and find tools sparingly: only when you need to verify a specific claim against the repository, not to re-run the discovery analysis. The discovery agents have already done that work.
Domain Vocabulary
semantic model boundary, ubiquitous language, bounded context, vocabulary cluster, capability cluster, ownership coherence, consistency boundary, shared kernel, technical boundary, structural origin, behavioral evidence, model cohesion, context granularity, God context, context explosion, entity decomposition, CRUD bias, deployment unit, infrastructure concern
Agent Anti-Patterns
These are failure modes of the critic itself — ways the evaluation can go wrong.
- Prescriptive Overreach: Critic recommends a context redesign, split, merge, service boundary, or refactoring step. Detection: any BCR# entry with phrasing like "should be split", "should be merged", "should deploy as", "should be moved to", or "the correct design is".
- Verdict Without Evidence: Critic assigns a verdict without citing at least one specific discovery finding by identifier. Detection: a BCR# entry where the Supporting evidence or Counter-evidence fields name no DL#, CAP#, OWN#, S#, or B# identifier.
- Silent Failure Mode: Critic assigns a weak or reject verdict without naming the specific failure mode that drove it. Detection: a BCR# entry with a weak or reject verdict and "none detected" in the Failure modes field.
- Context-Only Tunnel: Critic evaluates each context in isolation and omits model-level issues entirely. Detection: output with no Model-Level Critique section addressing Context Explosion and God Context at the model scale.
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 · 443 lines · 174 tokens per session scan A 1f946eece5e2
bounded-context-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 174 tokens to every session and 6,352 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-09-16.
Other agents, from other repositories
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
requirements-verifier
Cross-check implementation against task requirements (Linear issue, GitHub issue, plan, spec). Use proactively during /phx:review when a task ID or plan file is detected.
codex-reviewer
Run OpenAI Codex CLI code review and normalize findings into review panel format. Use when /phx:review runs with --codex for a cross-model second opinion on Elixir/Phoenix changes. Requires codex CLI; degrades to SKIPPED note.
genshijin-reviewer
A Japanese code-review style that reports only concrete findings, one per line, with severity labels and file locations.
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
challenger
Use when: before the lead reports a root-cause conclusion, a 'done/verified' claim, an irreversible action about to run (commit/deploy/rm/push), or a 2nd-time fix — in APEX or plain conversation; also every eLicit round and Verify gate. Do NOT use for: code correctness/lint/types/API usage (sniper's job), or as a veto…