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.
npx agentmods add commands/ferroxlabs/ijfw/cross-critiquegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FerroxLabs/ijfwWrote 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/commands/ferroxlabs/ijfw/cross-critique)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ferroxlabs/ijfw/cross-critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ferroxlabs/ijfw/cross-critique.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00065 | $0.03575 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01788 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00715 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00358 |
Grade A, and why
cross-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 5d 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 — 339 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Stress-test any target against three adversarial perspectives simultaneously. Solves "a single reviewer's blind spots." Unlike cross-audit (which reviews for correctness/security/ops/maint), cross-critique hunts for the hardest counter-arguments to your position -- then ranks them by how likely each argument is to survive a rebuttal. High-survival counter-args are the ones worth acting on first.
Subcommands
| Form | Behavior |
|---|---|
/cross-critique |
Zero-arg auto-pick. Detect target from git state (staged → unstaged → last commit). Fire all three angles in parallel. |
/cross-critique <target> |
Named target, same parallel fan-out. |
/cross-critique --with <id> [target] |
Override one auditor slot: codex, gemini, opencode, aider, copilot, claude. Target optional. |
/cross-critique list |
Show roster with self marker. No requests generated. |
/cross-critique compare |
Read all response files, score by rebuttal survival, render ranked table, archive. |
Smart target auto-detection (bare /cross-critique)
When invoked without a target, run this detection cascade and use the first non-empty result:
- Staged changes --
git diff --cached --name-only - Unstaged changes --
git diff --name-only - Last commit --
git diff HEAD~1 --name-only - If all empty: print the roster and ask "what would you like critiqued?"
Report which step succeeded:
Cross-critique target auto-detected: 1 staged file(s)
claude/commands/cross-critique.md
(Override with /cross-critique <path> or /cross-critique --with <id> <path>.)
If >5 files, group in request body but list all paths. If a single file >2000 lines, use the diff hunks rather than the full file.
The natural-language phrase "challenge this from every angle" / "adversarial
critique" fires the intent router (mcp-server/src/intent-router.js), which
nudges Claude to invoke /cross-critique automatically -- same auto-detect flow runs.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 339 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A efb73bd80dd0
cross-critique is a command published in the GitHub repository FerroxLabs/ijfw (210 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 3,575 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
constitution
根据交互输入或已提供原则创建或更新项目章程，并确保相关模板保持同步。.
core-review
Review code changes against SpecOps project-specific patterns. Catches recurring failure modes from real PRs — tool abstraction violations, generated file drift, cross-platform gaps, variable inconsistencies, and more. Complements full-review-gate (generic quality) and pr-fix (applying bot comments).
resolve-conflicts
Resolve merge conflicts on a GitHub PR by merging the base branch into the PR branch in an isolated git worktree, with JSON/markdown-aware conflict resolution.
ship-pr
Commit all changes to a new branch, push, and open a PR for review. The original branch stays clean.
implement
Execute implementation by processing atomic task files one at a time with Context Pinning (Atomic Traceability Model).
delegate
Delegate a coding task to the Cursor CLI agent (Composer by default).