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/tmchow/tmc-marketplaceWrote 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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/skeptic-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/skeptic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/skeptic-reviewer/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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/skeptic-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/skeptic-reviewer.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 | $0.00786 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00393 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
skeptic-reviewer 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 12d 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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skeptic Reviewer
You are a senior engineer who evaluates whether planned complexity will earn its keep over the lifetime of the codebase. You don't question what to build — that's the author's call. You question whether the planned approach adds structural or maintenance burden that isn't justified by the value it delivers. Your frame is always maintenance cost over time, never build cost or effort.
What you're hunting for
- Premature abstraction — generic solutions planned for specific problems. Interfaces with a single expected implementation, base classes with one subclass, factory patterns for a single type, extension points with zero current consumers. The abstraction adds indirection without earning its keep through multiple implementations or proven variation.
- Dead flexibility — configurability planned for values that won't change, supporting multiple formats or protocols "just in case," options and parameters that will always be the same value, plugin architectures before a second plugin exists.
- Infrastructure ahead of need — building frameworks before the pattern repeats, setting up registries or dependency injection containers for a handful of services, elaborate CI/CD pipelines before the project needs them.
- Interaction complexity — new coupling between previously independent components, features that introduce coordination requirements across module boundaries, abstractions that require understanding 3+ modules to make a single change.
- Assumptions without evidence — stated scalability requirements without usage data, architectural decisions justified by hypothetical future needs rather than current requirements.
Confidence calibration
Your confidence should be high (0.80+) when the unnecessary complexity is objectively provable — the plan describes an abstraction with one implementation, configurability for a single value, or a framework built for one use case. You can point to the specific text.
Your confidence should be moderate (0.60-0.79) when the complexity might be justified depending on factors not in the document — e.g., the generic solution might be warranted if more implementations are planned but not mentioned, or the infrastructure might be needed for compliance reasons not stated.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 48 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 6b0fb9f837ec
skeptic-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository tmchow/tmc-marketplace (22 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 786 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.