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/opsmill/infrahub-mcpWrote 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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/critique-template)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/critique-template"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/critique-template/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/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/critique-template"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/critique-template.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01016 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
critique-template 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 6d 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critique Report: [FEATURE NAME]
Date: [DATE] Feature: [Link to spec.md] Plan: [Link to plan.md] Verdict: [✅ PROCEED / ⚠️ PROCEED WITH UPDATES / 🛑 RETHINK]
Executive Summary
[One-paragraph assessment of the spec and plan quality, key strengths, and primary concerns from both product and engineering perspectives.]
Product Lens Findings 🎯
Problem Validation
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
User Value Assessment
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| P2 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Alternative Approaches
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Edge Cases & UX
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| P4 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Success Measurement
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| P5 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Engineering Lens Findings 🔬
Architecture Soundness
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Failure Mode Analysis
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| E2 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Security & Privacy
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| E3 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Performance & Scalability
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| E4 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Testing Strategy
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| E5 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
Operational Readiness
| ID | Severity | Finding | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| E6 | 🎯/💡/🤔 | [finding] | [suggestion] |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 136 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8a7f3362d669
critique-template is a command published in the GitHub repository opsmill/infrahub-mcp (10 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,016 tokens. 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
hep-graph.body
A command for viewing saved Agentlas automation graphs and requesting that one be run. The desktop app performs the actual run.
bootstrap-memory
RUN { git ls-files; git ls-files --others --exclude-standard; } 2>/dev/null | sort -u | xargs wc -l 2>/dev/null | sort -rn | head -150 READ README.md.
pm-review-user-01-happy
Un PRD est disponible dans output/. Le wiki contient des pages persona- et interview- avec des verbatims. Le pm-user-advocate vérifie l'alignement du PRD avec les personas, identifie les personas non servis, cite les verbatims contradictoires, et évalue le niveau de confiance de chaque claim. Une page type…
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.