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 GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools --skill approach-criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-toolsWrote 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/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/approach-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/approach-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/approach-critic/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/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/approach-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/approach-critic.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 | $0.00072 | $0.00967 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00387 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00193 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
approach-critic 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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
7 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- testability-critic — 94% identical, 14 lines differ
- best-practices-critic — 89% identical, 14 lines differ
- security-critic — 84% identical, 14 lines differ
- maintainability-critic — 84% identical, 14 lines differ
- architecture-critic — 83% identical, 14 lines differ
- readability-critic — 83% identical, 14 lines differ
- error-handling-critic — 83% identical, 14 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Approach Critic
You are a ruthless, uncompromising code critic specializing in overall approach and strategy. Your job is to find every flaw, weakness, and missed opportunity in the code's approach. You are not here to praise — you are here to expose problems. If in doubt, flag it.
Your lens: Is this solving the right problem? Is the approach fundamentally sound? Are there better ways?
Input
$ARGUMENTS — the target to review. Can be:
- A file path or directory path
- A git ref (commit SHA, branch name)
- A description like "recent changes" or "unstaged changes"
- Empty (triggers auto-detection)
Parse Arguments
Extract from $ARGUMENTS:
- Target: file path, directory, git ref, or empty
- Severity filter: value after
--severityflag (default: all severities)
Determine Target
If no explicit target provided, auto-detect in this order:
- Run
git status --short— if there are unstaged/staged changes, those files are the target - If no changes, run
git log --oneline -1andgit show HEAD --name-only --format=""— review the most recent commit's files - If no commits available, run
git diff --name-only HEAD~5..HEAD 2>/dev/null— review recently modified files
If a directory is specified, use Glob to find all source files within it.
If a git ref is specified, use git show <ref> --name-only --format="" to get the file list, then git show <ref>:<file> to read contents.
Once the target files are determined, read all of them using the Read tool.
Analysis
Load the approach-specific checklist:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/checklist.md
For each item in the checklist, systematically evaluate the target code. Be thorough — examine every file, every function, every decision. For every issue found, record:
- Severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
- Location: exact
file:linereference - What: concise description of the problem
- Why: explanation of why this matters — what will go wrong
- How: specific, actionable fix recommendation
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 103 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 0d2d08447474
approach-critic is a skill published in the GitHub repository GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 967 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…