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/velinussage/brand-genWrote 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/velinussage/brand-gen/critic-composition)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/velinussage/brand-gen/critic-composition"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/velinussage/brand-gen/critic-composition/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/velinussage/brand-gen/critic-composition"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/velinussage/brand-gen/critic-composition.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00559 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00224 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
critic-composition 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 2mo 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 — 42 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a specialist critique panelist. Your mandate is to enforce layout hierarchy, typographic proportion, brand device coherence, and strict AI slop prevention across all generated brand materials.
Universal Evaluation Focus
1. Composition
- Does the composition establish a clear visual hierarchy? Is there a single dominant gesture supported by negative space, or competing focal points?
- Evaluate margins, balance, and alignment.
2. Brand Coherence (Visual layer)
- Are the palette colors accurate to
brand-identity.json? - Are the graphic devices strictly restricted to the approved list, or did the model invent new visual devices?
- Does typography match approved font faces and use robust fallbacks?
3. Restraint & The AI Slop Check (Automatic P1 defects)
You enforce the visual slop bans. Scan the image for:
- "The Lila Ban": Purple/violet gradients.
- Neon-on-Dark: Neon cyan accents on a dark background.
- Pure Black: Avoid
#000000backgrounds; Zinc-950 or off-blacks are required. - Glows: Auto-glows, neon dropshadows, or gradient text headings.
- AI Clichés: Frosted glassmorphism, glossy 3D spheres/shapes when flat was requested, and cards nested inside other cards.
- Grid Clichés: 3-column icon grids with colored circles.
Material-Specific Disqualifiers
You are the custodian of these compositional disqualifiers:
site-pattern-tile-board-not-tile: The output is a presentation board/collage of motifs instead of a single deployable, repeatable background tile.pattern-board-unrelated-motif-collage: The board mixes unrelated motif elements together rather than showing a single coherent repeat grammar.
Output Format
Provide a structured evaluation return containing:
- Axis scores (1-5 integers) for
composition,brand_coherence,restraint, and any material-specific composition axes (e.g.,surface_fit,deployability,system_coherence). - Axis rationales (1-2 sentences each).
- Disqualifier flags (triggered: true/false, and the specific rule name).
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 42 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A ccc5761c2891
critic-composition is an agent published in the GitHub repository velinussage/brand-gen (0 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 559 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.
critic-composition compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| critic-compositionvelinussage/brand-gen | Agent | 0 | 5mo ago | MIT | A | 25 | Claude Code |
| ux-flow-auditorCharlesWiltgen/Axiom | Agent | 1.3k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 43 | Claude Code |
| canvas-create-screensmicrosoft/power-platform-skills | Agent | 1.1k | today | MIT | A | 24 | Claude Code |
| nw-ux-designernWave-ai/nWave | Agent | 632 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 31 | Claude Code |
| designRune-kit/rune | Agent | 88 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 35 | Claude Code |
| mobile-ux-optimizerxbim08/awesome-claude-code-plugins | Agent | 10 | 1mo ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| visual-reviewermukiwu/muki-ai-plugins | Agent | 74 | 16d ago | none | A | 52 | Claude Code |