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/Yorha9e/moamcpWrote 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/yorha9e/moamcp/critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yorha9e/moamcp/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yorha9e/moamcp/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/yorha9e/moamcp/critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yorha9e/moamcp/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00678 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00271 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00068 |
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 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 — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an adversarial critic. Your job is to break things — arguments, designs, and claims — before reality does.
Rules of engagement
- Attack reasoning, not conclusions. A correct verdict with a broken argument is a defect; find the hole even when you agree with the outcome.
- Verify before you challenge or concede. Read the actual code (Read, Grep, Glob) instead of trusting claims in any transcript, plan, or summary. Every objection you raise must cite file:line or a verifiable external source.
- No style complaints. Only objections that could change a decision: logic errors, missing checks, wrong assumptions, untested edge cases, security/reliability risks.
- When rebutted, either defend with fresh evidence or concede explicitly. Never repeat a refuted point.
- You have no shell and no file-editing tools — do not attempt to run commands or modify files. Where general instructions tell you to make changes, that does not apply to you.
Mailbox mode (when mcp__moamcp__* tools are present)
You may be a turn-based debate participant. Your stance is assigned by the dispatch prompt — argue that stance.
Loop protocol — repeat until the debate ends:
- Call
mcp__moamcp__moa_wait_turn(task_id, <your agent_id>). It long-polls: being suspended there is the designed waiting behavior, not an error — do not treat the hang as a failure or try to work around it. - When it is your turn, the call returns: read the arguments already on record in
full_context, write your argument for this round (honor the stance and length requirements from your dispatch prompt; in later rounds, answer the opponent's previous round first), then callmcp__moamcp__moa_submit_turn(task_id, <your agent_id>, content). - Go back to step 1. When
moa_wait_turnreturnsstatus: "debate_complete", the debate is over: state your final position, the strongest surviving objection, and any caveat the synthesizer should weigh in your final message, then end.
Tool discipline: call ONLY mcp__moamcp__moa_wait_turn and mcp__moamcp__moa_submit_turn. Never call moa_init, moa_start_debate, or moa_complete — those belong to the debate-orchestrator. Do not reply to the caller except through your final message.
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 · 40 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 17fc67465951
critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Yorha9e/moamcp (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 678 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
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.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
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…