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 skills add causify-ai/helpers --skill slides.criticizegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/causify-ai/helpersWrote 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/skills/causify-ai/helpers/slides.criticize)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/causify-ai/helpers/slides.criticize"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/causify-ai/helpers/slides.criticize/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/skills/causify-ai/helpers/slides.criticize"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/causify-ai/helpers/slides.criticize.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 3 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00013 | $0.00789 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
slides.criticize 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 28d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Goal
- Review and criticize a slide deck or subset of slides provided by the user
- Identify mistakes and improvement opportunities, focusing on factual errors, rather than style suggestions
- Propose concrete, ranked improvements to content, flow, visual clarity, pacing, and audience fit
Workflow
Read the Material
-
Read
.claude/skills/slides.rules.mdfor the rules that slides must follow -
Read the slide deck file passed by the user
- Note the deck title, target audience, and stated learning objectives (if any)
- Read all slides sequentially to understand the narrative arc
-
Read context about the presentation:
- What is the venue/duration? (lecture, conference talk, workshop, etc.)
- What is the assumed prior knowledge?
- Are there adjacent slide decks or prerequisite presentations?
Criticize
-
Read
.claude/skills/text.criticize/SKILL.mdto understand general approaches to review and criticize text -
Evaluate along these axes, reporting only issues you are confident about:
- Slide-level clarity:
- Too much text per slide (exceeds visible time + cognitive load)
- Unclear titles or takeaways
- Missing or weak visual hierarchy
- Jargon or concepts assumed without intro
- Deck flow & narrative:
- Abrupt transitions between ideas
- Slides in wrong order (should come earlier/later)
- Orphaned or tangential slides
- Missing bridge slides to connect concepts
- Pacing (too slow intro, rushed conclusion, uneven rhythm)
- Audience fit:
- Level too high or too low for stated audience
- Unexplained background assumptions
- Missing motivation or context for why this matters
- Structure & consistency:
- Inconsistent formatting or visual style
- Slides that break the template (if one exists)
- Missing the mandatory standalone
* Roadmap(first slide) or* Summary(last content slide, before* References); see.claude/skills/slides.rules.md## Roadmap Slide/## Summary Slide * Roadmapout of sync with the deck's actual#topics (stale after edits), or* Summaryrestating stale takeaways- Speaker notes missing or incomplete
- Timing & scope:
- Deck too long or too short for the slot
- Individual slides that will overrun or underrun their time
- Candidates to expand, collapse, or split
- Engagement & visuals:
- Slides that rely only on bullet points (no visuals, examples, or storytelling)
- Diagrams or images that are unclear or misleading
- Missing opportunities for interaction or questions
- Slide-level clarity:
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.
- 28d ago Changed · +4 lines 0f2bb2f4b374
- 1mo ago Changed b9d999a03398
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines 2f38ed8667ea
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines a7afb540c067
- 1mo ago First seen · 75 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A cd5e4eb9f760
slides.criticize is a skill published in the GitHub repository causify-ai/helpers (150 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 789 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
hr-onboarding
A new-hire onboarding plan as a single page — first week schedule, buddy + manager intro, learning track, equipment checklist, and "you're set when…" outcomes. Use when the brief mentions "onboarding", "new hire", "first week plan", or "入职".
book-mirror
Take any book (EPUB/PDF), produce a personalized chapter-by-chapter analysis. Each chapter is preserved in detail (The Chapter) and mirrored back to the reader's actual life (The Mirror) using brain context. The mirror observes and resonates — a friend pointing out parallels, NOT a consultant rearranging the reader's…
exam-forecast
Analyze past exams from the same professor to surface patterns — subject weighting, recurring issue-spot traps, favored hypo types, policy-vs-doctrine mix — and forecast likely emphases for the upcoming exam. Use when the user says "what's on the exam", "analyze past exams", "predict the exam", or shares past exams.
lean-formalize
Develop and verify a mathematical proof in Lean, continue an incomplete Lean project, or audit whether it proves the original statement. Connect actual inputs to intermediate lemmas, assemble the target theorem, check its transitive axioms, and provide a reproducible handoff. Use when Lean is requested or a specific…
miniapp
Build a tiny interactive HTML playground only when someone asks to see, play with, or step through a mechanism.
eli5
Explain research, papers, or technical ideas in plain English with minimal jargon, concrete analogies, and clear takeaways. Use when the user says "ELI5 this", asks for a simple explanation of a paper or research result, wants jargon removed, or asks what something technically dense actually means.