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 OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin --skill cross-critiquegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OutlineDriven/odin-claude-pluginWrote 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/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/cross-critique)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/cross-critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/cross-critique/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/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/cross-critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/outlinedriven/odin-claude-plugin/cross-critique.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 | $0.00038 | $0.01003 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00502 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
cross-critique 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 4d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to cross-critique — 0 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cross critique
Contract
| Field | Bound contract |
|---|---|
| Trigger | Multiple independent proposals on a contested decision exist (round-one proposals are on the table). |
| Authority | Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation. The synthesis is conversational output. |
| Side effect | Read-only second round reusing existing subagents; no repo mutation. |
| Done | Synthesis notes convergence, strongest objections, and surviving option. |
Inputs
- N independent proposals from a prior round (must be supplied). Round one must have been independent (authors did not see each other's work) or the diversity that makes round two valuable is lost.
- The contested decision question and its decision criteria (must be supplied).
- Access to the same subagents that produced round one (required, to reuse their investigation context).
- Optional: neutral authorship labels (Proposal A, B, C) for anonymized circulation.
Procedure
- Verify the prerequisite: at least two genuinely divergent proposals exist from an independent first round. If the proposals already strongly agree, or the question has an objective answer verifiable directly, stop. A second round adds latency and tokens without resolving real disagreement. Done when: divergence and independence are confirmed, or the round is stopped with the reason reported.
- Assemble each proposal's core recommendation and reasoning (not full transcripts). Label them neutrally (Proposal A, B, C) and anonymize authorship where practical to reduce bandwagon bias toward whichever author sounds most confident. Done when: each proposal is assembled with neutral labels and anonymized authorship.
- Reuse the same subagents from round one rather than spawning fresh ones, so each retains its investigation context. Send each author only the other proposals (not its own). Done when: each round-one subagent is reused and receives only the other proposals.
- Ask each author to assess every alternative:
- Its pros: what it gets right and where it is stronger than the author's own approach.
- Its cons: risks, edge cases, hidden costs, and wrong assumptions.
- Whether the alternatives change the author's recommendation, and why or why not.
- A final ranking with confidence.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 54 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 25f489b2ce2f
cross-critique is a skill published in the GitHub repository OutlineDriven/odin-claude-plugin (35 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,003 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to cross-critique, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…
next-partial-prefetching-adoption
Turn on Partial Prefetching in a Next.js app and work through the insights it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable or adopt Partial Prefetching, flip the partialPrefetching flag, opt routes in with export const prefetch = 'partial', audit Link prefetch={true} behavior, preserve existing prefetched UI with…