Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/plugin install grok-buildWrote 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/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/critique)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/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 5.1 | $0.00014 | $0.01194 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00597 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00119 |
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 8d 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Run a Grok Build critique through the plugin bridge (read-only write barrier: --no-plan, --sandbox read-only, disallowed write tools, and deny rules — not plan mode). Position it as a challenge pass that questions the chosen implementation, design choices, tradeoffs, and assumptions. It is not just a stricter pass over implementation defects.
Raw slash-command arguments: $ARGUMENTS
Core constraint:
- This command is review-only.
- Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
- Your only job is to run the critique and return Grok's output verbatim to the user.
- Keep the framing focused on whether the current approach is the right one, what assumptions it depends on, and where the design could fail under real-world conditions.
Execution mode rules:
- If the raw arguments include
--wait, do not ask. Run in the foreground. - If the raw arguments include
--background, do not ask. Run via the bridge background path (short Claude enqueue only). - Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
- For working-tree review, start with
git status --short --untracked-files=all. - For working-tree review, also inspect both
git diff --shortstat --cachedandgit diff --shortstat. - For base-branch review, use
git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD. - Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work for auto or working-tree review even when
git diff --shortstatis empty. - Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant scope is actually empty.
- Recommend waiting only when the scoped review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
- In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
- When in doubt, run the critique instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
- For working-tree review, start with
- Then use
AskUserQuestionexactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with(Recommended):Wait for resultsRun in background
Argument handling:
- Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
- Do not strip
--waitor--backgroundyourself. - Do not weaken the critique framing or rewrite the user's focus text.
--model,--effort,--timeout-ms,--max-turns,--base, and--scopeare runtime-selection flags. Preserve them for the bridge call; do not treat them as focus text.- Leave
--modeland--effortunset unless the user explicitly asks for them. Accepted effort values:low,medium,high,xhigh— measured against the CLI rather than copied from its binary, which lists three more that the flag refuses. - The bridge script parses
--waitand--background. Bridge--backgroundowns the long-running process group (detachedrun-worker+ grok agent). Claude Code'sBash(..., run_in_background: true)is only for the short enqueue call, not the long critique process. - If both
--backgroundand--waitare present,--waitwins (foreground). /grok-build:critiqueuses the same review target selection as/grok-build:review.- Like
/grok-build:review,/grok-build:critiquecan still take extra focus text after the flags — and only after them. Option parsing stops at the first focus word, so a flag placed later is read as part of the text. - Critique is schema-gated: empty or unusable structured output fails with a non-zero exit and
failureCode(no-deliverableorschema-parse). Exit contract is in the plugin README; return stdout/stderr unchanged on failure.
Foreground flow:
- Run:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/grok-bridge.mjs" critique "$ARGUMENTS"
- Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
- Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
- Do not fix any issues mentioned in the critique output.
Background flow:
- Prefer the bridge's own detached worker so stop owns a stable process group. Ensure the forwarded arguments include
--background(add it if the user chose background and did not already pass the flag). - Launch with
Bash(Claude may still userun_in_background: truefor the short enqueue call; the long-running work is the bridgerun-worker):
Bash({
command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/grok-bridge.mjs" critique --background "$ARGUMENTS"`,
description: "Grok Build critique",
run_in_background: true
})
- Do not call
BashOutputor wait for completion in this turn. - After launching the command, tell the user: "Grok Build critique started in the background. Check
/grok-build:runsfor progress. Stop with/grok-build:stop."
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 67 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 7cc2fb00c124
critique is a command published in the GitHub repository kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge (2 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,194 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 commands, from other repositories
review
Review Grok output (diff gate — never auto-commit).
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks — writes code following specs and design.
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
simplify
The over-engineering review: five tags (delete, stdlib, native, yagni, shrink), a mandatory replacement per finding, and a real null result when there is nothing to cut.
git
The pre-finish status: branch, hygiene findings, message checks, workflow lint, template state.