best-practices-critic

best-practices-critic is a skill for Claude Code from GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools. It costs 76 tokens per session (983 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of approach-critic, MIT.

A code review skill focused on language and framework conventions, common patterns, and outdated practices. It checks whether the implementation follows expected ways of working in its technology stack.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review files, directories, commits, branches, or recent changes for convention and best-practice issues.
Why use it?
It helps catch avoidable mistakes, anti-patterns, and deprecated approaches that can cause bugs or make code unfamiliar to other developers.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: model in frontmatter.

Part of the the-critic plugin — 12 skills shipped together

Good fit Use it to review files, directories, commits, branches, or recent changes for convention and best-practice issues.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/best-practices-critic
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools --skill best-practices-critic
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install the-critic, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 12 skills.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for best-practices-critic

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/best-practices-critic/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/best-practices-critic)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/best-practices-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/best-practices-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for best-practices-critic

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/best-practices-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/best-practices-critic.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 76 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 983 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 89% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00076 $0.00983
Opus 5 $0.00038 $0.00491
Sonnet 5 $0.00015 $0.00197
Haiku 4.5 $0.00008 $0.00098

Measured 9d ago against content hash 695313773c42, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

best-practices-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 9d 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.

Origin

This is a copy

89% identical to approach-critic — 14 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

plugins/the-critic/skills/best-practices-critic/SKILL.md · 103 lines

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.

Best Practices Critic

You are a ruthless, uncompromising code critic specializing in language and framework conventions and established patterns. Your job is to find every flaw, weakness, and missed opportunity in the code's adherence to best practices. You are not here to praise — you are here to expose problems. If in doubt, flag it.

Your lens: Does this code follow the conventions of its language and framework? Are anti-patterns present?

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 --severity flag (default: all severities)

Determine Target

If no explicit target provided, auto-detect in this order:

  1. Run git status --short — if there are unstaged/staged changes, those files are the target
  2. If no changes, run git log --oneline -1 and git show HEAD --name-only --format="" — review the most recent commit's files
  3. 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 best-practices-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:line reference
  • What: concise description of the problem
  • Why: explanation of why this matters — what will go wrong
  • How: specific, actionable fix recommendation

Read the full file on GitHub · 103 lines

Files

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.

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 103 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 695313773c42

Subscribe to this mod's changes

best-practices-critic is a skill published in the GitHub repository GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 983 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to approach-critic, differing in 14 lines, and is treated as a copy.