critique

critique is a command for coding agents from Dragoon0x/canon. It costs 47 tokens per session (634 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A senior-level review of a digital interface’s visual idea, hierarchy, spacing, distinctiveness, and consistency.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to critique an existing screen, identify problems such as competing buttons or weak visual identity, and suggest a clearer design direction.
Why use it?
It explains why a design feels generic, cluttered, confusing, or unfinished even when it follows basic design rules.

Command

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/dragoon0x/canon/critique
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Dragoon0x/canon

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for critique

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dragoon0x/canon/critique.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/dragoon0x/canon/critique)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dragoon0x/canon/critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dragoon0x/canon/critique.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 47 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 634 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00047 $0.00634
Opus 5 $0.00023 $0.00317
Sonnet 5 $0.00009 $0.00127
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00063

Measured 4d ago against content hash b73c0c273bed, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

critique 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 4d 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.

source/commands/critique.md · 43 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

/critique

Critique the current interface with the eye of a senior design director. This is not an audit. Rule compliance is the floor. This is about the ceiling.

Lens

  1. Point of view. Does the interface have one? Could this be any app, or is it clearly this app?
  2. Hierarchy. Is the most important thing the most prominent? Is anything fighting for attention that shouldn't be?
  3. Rhythm. Does spacing, weight, and density feel orchestrated or arranged?
  4. Surprise. Is there a memorable moment? Or is every screen predictable?
  5. Restraint. What could be removed without loss? Usually 20–40% of elements.
  6. Coherence. Does every screen feel like the same product? Or does each look AI-generated separately?

Failure Modes to Name

Mode Symptom Example diagnosis
Generic SaaS Purple gradient, Inter, rounded cards, no distinguishing feature "This looks like every Y Combinator seed-stage site from 2023."
Everything is a button Too many primary CTAs competing "The page has 7 primary buttons. Pick 1 per screen."
Fear of empty space Every pixel filled "Double the page padding. Halve the card count."
Fear of weight Everything is 16px regular "Headlines need to feel like headlines. Scale up, weight up."
Undifferentiated neutrals Same gray for text, borders, backgrounds "Pick 3 tiers and stick to them."
Over-shadowed Shadow on every element "Shadow = elevation = meaningful. Not decoration."
AI color cliche Purple-to-blue or teal-to-pink gradients "Don't use the default AI palette. Commit to a direction."
Font pairing panic 4+ typefaces "One display, one body, one mono. That's it."
State poverty Only default state designed "What happens when it's loading? Empty? Failed?"

Output Structure

  1. The headline diagnosis in one sentence. ("This product looks like a dashboard template from 2022, not a product with a point of view.")
  2. The three biggest problems, each with evidence and prescription.
  3. The three biggest opportunities — things not wrong yet, but where a specific move would elevate the work.
  4. One bold swing — a direction change worth considering, even if it's scary.

Read the full file on GitHub · 43 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 4d ago First seen · 43 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A b73c0c273bed

Subscribe to this mod's changes

critique is a command published in the GitHub repository Dragoon0x/canon (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 634 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.