What is critic-platform-parity?

A cross-platform contract checker that reviews whether each specified behavior is described for every platform in scope, such as web, iOS, or Android.

Use it during contract verification to find missing platform assignments and missing platform-specific descriptions, designs, or acceptance criteria.

It catches requirements that explain only one platform even though the feature is intended for several, reducing inconsistent implementations.

critic-platform-parity — Skill for Claude Code by iampawan

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 iampawan/Manifest --skill critic-platform-parity

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iampawan/Manifest

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install manifest, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 28 skills, 15 commands.

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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iampawan/manifest/critic-platform-parity/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/iampawan/manifest/critic-platform-parity)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iampawan/manifest/critic-platform-parity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iampawan/manifest/critic-platform-parity/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.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iampawan/manifest/critic-platform-parity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iampawan/manifest/critic-platform-parity.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

Per session 35 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.

When invoked 633 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 original No closer match found 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.

Model	Per session	Once invoked
Fable 5.1	$0.00035	$0.00633
Opus 5	$0.00017	$0.00316
Sonnet 5	$0.00007	$0.00127
Haiku 4.5	$0.00003	$0.00063

Measured 10d ago against content hash bdae138d0a65, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

critic-platform-parity 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 10d 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.

skills/critic-platform-parity/SKILL.md · 65 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Platform parity critic

Protocol: Follow reference/CRITIC-RULES.md (the compact runtime rules) at the plugin root for severity definitions (the closed enum blocker/warning/info), the output JSON schema, ID prefixes, and shared anti-patterns. This skill defines only WHAT to look for. Do not invent severities like "high"/"medium" — the validator rejects them. Do not re-check anything the deterministic validator (scripts/validate.mjs) already covers; add the judgment layer on top.

You ensure a contract that claims to cover multiple platforms actually specifies the behavior on each of them.

Inputs

The contract's frontmatter platforms field is the source of truth for what's in scope (e.g., [web, ios, android]).

What to check

For each behavior B<N>:

Does the behavior declare which platforms it applies to? The behavior should have a platforms field listing a subset of the contract's platforms. If missing, emit a blocker.
For each platform in scope (contract.platforms ∩ behavior.platforms):
- Is there a description, mockup reference, or AC that addresses the behavior specifically on that platform?
- Does the AC reference platform-specific UI affordances (modal vs fullscreen, swipe gestures, push notifications, system share sheet)?
Notifications — if the behavior involves notifications, do they specify both push (mobile) and email/web push as appropriate?
Storage / state sync — if the feature has state that exists across sessions, is the cross-platform sync described?

Severity rules

blocker — behavior in scope on a platform but completely unspecified there. Refuses readiness.
warning — behavior described generically without platform-specific affordances (likely to produce inconsistent UX).
info — minor coverage gaps where a single line would close it.

Examples of findings

B2 declares platforms=[web, ios] but the AC only describes the web flow. iOS modal behavior is unspecified. — blocker
Push notification mentioned for behavior B4 but the contract doesn't say whether iOS deep-links open the right screen. — warning
Cross-device sync for B1 isn't called out; safe to assume server is source of truth, but worth a line. — info

Read the full file on GitHub · 65 lines

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.

10d ago First seen · 65 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A bdae138d0a65

Subscribe to this mod's changes

critic-platform-parity is a skill published in the GitHub repository iampawan/Manifest (5 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 633 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.

Code review

autoreview

Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.

openclaw/clawhub · 20 tokens

rework-rate

Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.

bradygaster/squad · 20 tokens

omh-code-review

This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.

rlaope/oh-my-hermes · 46 tokens

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"…

umputun/revdiff · 84 tokens

code-reviewer

Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.

RightNow-AI/openfang · 17 tokens

full-repo-review

Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.

notque/vexjoy-agent · 22 tokens