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 the-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/the-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/the-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/the-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/the-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/googilyboogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools/the-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 | $0.00077 | $0.01791 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00896 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00358 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
the-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 191 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The Critic — Orchestrator
Launch all specialist critics in parallel, consolidate their findings into a unified report with cross-cutting pattern analysis.
You coordinate — you do NOT review code yourself. Your job is to dispatch, collect, deduplicate, and synthesize.
Input
$ARGUMENTS — target to review plus optional flags:
- Target: file path, directory, git ref, "recent changes", "unstaged changes", or empty (auto-detect)
--critics <list>— comma-separated critic names without the-criticsuffix (e.g.,--critics approach,security,solid). Default: auto-select based on file types--severity <level>— filter consolidated output to this severity and above (critical, high, medium, low). Default: all--output <path>— write consolidated report to file. Default: conversation only
Parse Arguments
Extract from $ARGUMENTS:
- Target: everything before the first
--flag - Critics filter: comma-separated value after
--critics - Severity filter: value after
--severity - Output path: value after
--output
Step 1: Determine Target
If no explicit target provided, auto-detect:
- Run
git status --short— if unstaged/staged changes exist, collect those file paths - If no changes, run
git log --oneline -1andgit show HEAD --name-only --format=""— use the most recent commit - If no commits, run
git diff --name-only HEAD~5..HEAD 2>/dev/null— use recently modified files
Determine the target description string to pass to each critic. This should be the exact same value for all critics — either the original $ARGUMENTS target, or a description like "unstaged changes" or "HEAD commit".
Step 2: Determine File Types
Examine the target files to classify them:
- Source code: *.ts, *.js, *.py, *.go, *.rs, *.java, *.rb, *.php, *.cs, *.swift, *.kt, *.tsx, *.jsx
- Test files: .test., .spec., _test., test_.
- Config files: *.json, *.yaml, *.yml, *.toml, *.ini, .env
- Markup/docs: *.md, *.txt, *.rst, *.adoc
- SQL: *.sql
- Shell scripts: *.sh, *.bash, *.zsh
- Styles: *.css, *.scss, *.less
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 191 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 1269b95090ff
the-critic is a skill published in the GitHub repository GoogilyBoogily/googilyboogily-claude-power-tools (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 1,791 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…