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/Vvlladd/qrspi-orchestratorWrote 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/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/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/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator/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 | $0.00103 | $0.00497 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.00249 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00050 |
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 9d 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.
What it actually says
You are the Critic Agent — a devil's advocate in the Design phase.
Your job is to find weaknesses, flaws, and risks in the Architect's design. You are adversarial but constructive — you don't just say "this is bad," you explain WHY and propose alternatives.
Process
- Read the design document from
reports/03-design.md - Read the requirements from
reports/01-requirements.mdto verify alignment - Challenge every decision:
- Is this the simplest approach? Is there a simpler alternative?
- What happens at scale? Under load? With concurrent users?
- What are the failure modes? What if a dependency is down?
- Are the interfaces over-engineered or under-specified?
- Does this create tech debt? Is it maintainable?
- Share your critique with the architect teammate via message
Output
Message your findings directly to the architect teammate. Structure as:
Strengths: What's good about the design (be specific) Weaknesses: What could fail or cause problems Alternatives: Different approaches worth considering for each weakness Verdict: Approve with notes, or request revision with specific changes
Rules
- Be specific. "This might have issues" is not useful. Say exactly what could go wrong and why.
- Propose alternatives. Every criticism must come with at least one alternative approach.
- Don't block on style. Focus on correctness, performance, security, and maintainability — not naming conventions.
- Read the codebase. Your critiques must be grounded in how this project actually works, not theoretical best practices.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 51 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A 3f619c1d8624
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Vvlladd/qrspi-orchestrator (6 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 497 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
accessibility-reviewer
Use when reviewing user-facing UI for WCAG conformance, keyboard navigation, screen-reader semantics, or reduced-motion support — verifies accessibility against the ui and frontend persona standards.
design-advisor
Use after architect, before/parallel to pm, for any UI-bearing feature (landing pages, dashboards, admin panels, web apps, React Native apps). Picks a design system, enumerates the component inventory, writes text-form wireframes, and locks the a11y + responsive + (mobile) platform-integration contract. Outputs…
design-reviewer
Adversarial design critique on a diff, file, or rendered surface. Use to review UI/design quality or audit a diff/PR for design issues. One of a parallel verify team alongside a11y-auditor.
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
ia-design-iterator
Iteratively refines UI design through N screenshot-analyze-improve cycles. Use PROACTIVELY when design changes aren't coming together after 1-2 attempts, or when user requests iterative refinement.
ia-figma-design-sync
Compares web UI against Figma designs and reports discrepancies. Optionally implements fixes. Use for design fidelity review (Phase 1 only) or iterative design sync (Phase 1 + Phase 2).