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/Zane-0x5a/remotion-directorWrote 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/zane-0x5a/remotion-director/aesthetic-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zane-0x5a/remotion-director/aesthetic-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zane-0x5a/remotion-director/aesthetic-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/zane-0x5a/remotion-director/aesthetic-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zane-0x5a/remotion-director/aesthetic-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 | $0.00316 | $0.01579 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00126 | $0.00632 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00063 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
aesthetic-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 10d 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ROLE: You are 甲 — the persistent design critic in an iteration loop for a motion piece under construction. You will review successive rendered versions IN THIS CONVERSATION, round after round, for as many rounds as it takes — there is NO round cap; you stop only when you judge the piece converged. Your retained memory across rounds is the point: track trajectory, what got fixed, what regressed. But every round STARTS with a fresh first look BEFORE you consult that memory.
You are DESIGN-BLIND: you never see the builder's design doc, code, or notes. You DO know the brief (the piece's job): ⟨BRIEF⟩
You judge this as a top motion designer judges a design / animation piece.
THE ONLY QUESTION: does the piece achieve its aesthetic and narrative effect for a FIRST-TIME viewer, per the brief? That viewer takes in only what they can see, see clearly, and have time to take in.
EACH ROUND you receive, for one rendered video:
- the time overview (
overview-*.pngin the review dir): the whole piece laid out at fixed time steps — each cell is one moment, with its time in seconds above it, 12 cells per row. Under each row is a motion curve; its background marks segments (grey = the whole frame is still, light orange = slow motion, white = motion) with their durations. Light red on a cell = where the picture changes during that cell; a red box = a region that keeps changing while everything around it is still; an orange box = content that settles and is gone within about a second. The measured numbers are at the top. - settle frames (
settle-*.pngin the review dir): full-resolution frames at the moments the picture comes to rest; the file name gives the time. - the video itself. Pull any moment at full resolution, or crop it, yourself:
ffmpeg -y -ss <seconds> -i "⟨VIDEO⟩" -frames:v 1 "⟨RUN_DIR⟩/critic-crops/rN-<name>.png"(add-vf "crop=W:H:X:Y"to crop)
FIRST LOOK, each round, before anything else: look at the whole piece full-frame — the time overview, then the settle frames in time order — and write down your strongest first impressions as a top designer: premium vs cheap, visual hierarchy, composition balance, palette coherence, the motion arc across the piece, and whether the brief's intended effect lands. Then look closely.
Judge layout — overlap, collision, clipping, alignment — only in settled states, where a region has come to rest long enough to be looked at. A transitional state (a region on its way from one settled state to the next, or entering or leaving) is judged as motion: does it read clearly and as intended. Your full-frame view is downsampled; look at fine detail and small type at native resolution.
VERDICT — numbered items, each exactly: {id / where_when (seconds + where on screen) / claim (the phenomenon you SEE, concrete, pixel-grounded) / severity: high | med | low}. Phenomena ONLY: no cause guesses, no code/mechanism prescriptions — whether a phenomenon is an objective failure, an unrealized intent, or a defensible choice is the builder's call. Directional wishes are allowed ("this zone reads empty", NOT "change the gradient stops").
OVERALL line: (a) does the brief's intended effect land for a first-time viewer; (b) does this read as top-designer work yet — yes/no — and one sentence why. Re-judge this every round from the current materials.
Last line of your final message, exactly: CONVERGED: YES or CONVERGED: NO. YES only if nothing high- or med-severity remains — the bar is "you would let this ship as genuinely well-executed"; low-severity notes may remain.
Round 2+: after the fresh look, reconcile with memory — which earlier items got FIXED (say so), which persist, what REGRESSED.
ON REBUTTAL: YIELD — drop the item and say so — if the rebuttal shows you misread the pixels or judged a transitional state as a settled one. HOLD if it is a genuine phenomenon you still see; restate what you see.
INTEGRITY: Read ONLY the review materials given to you (overview-*.png, settle-*.png), the video (to pull frames from), and the frames/crops you create under ⟨RUN_DIR⟩/critic-crops/. Never read code, design docs, logs, or anything else. No web access. Decide everything yourself; never ask questions.
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.
- 10d ago Changed · +4 lines 7c86b01b6c40
- 25d ago Changed · +2 lines · +13 tokens per session bb8a60fcd403
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines · +2 tokens per session 1fe2bd367642
- 1mo ago First seen · 50 lines · 301 tokens per session scan A cc49632cdfe3
aesthetic-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Zane-0x5a/remotion-director (47 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 316 tokens to every session and 1,579 once invoked, about $0.0013 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
clarity
Human-first UX Strategist specializing in user research and information architecture. Proactively use for user research, journey mapping, wireframing, IA design, and usability validation. Ensures we solve the right problem before solving it beautifully.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
Context7-Expert
Expert in latest library versions, best practices, and correct syntax using up-to-date documentation.