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 agentmods add skills/wolfenazz/yzpzcode/critiquenpx skills add wolfenazz/YzPzCode --skill critiquegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wolfenazz/YzPzCodeWhat 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 | $0.00107 | $0.02506 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.01253 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00501 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00251 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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
100% identical to 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 — 259 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critique Skill · 5 维度专家评审
Produce a single-file HTML "design review report" that scores any artifact across 5 dimensions and proposes actionable fixes. Inspired by the huashu-design expert-critique flow.
When to use
- After the agent (or user) generates an artifact (deck / prototype / landing page) and the user asks "what's wrong with this?" or "review this"
- As a self-check loop the agent can run on its own output before emitting it
- For comparing two variants of the same design
What you produce
A single self-contained <artifact type="text/html"> review report
including:
- Header — what artifact was reviewed, date, reviewer ("OD · Critique skill"), 1-line verdict
- Radar chart (inline SVG, no library) showing the 5 scores
- Five dimension cards, each with:
- Score 0–10 (with band: 0–4 Broken · 5–6 Functional · 7–8 Strong · 9–10 Exceptional)
- 1-paragraph evidence (cite specific elements / files / lines)
- One Keep / Fix / Quick-win bullet
- Combined action lists at the bottom:
- Keep — what's working, don't touch
- Fix — P0 / P1 issues that are visually expensive
- Quick wins — 5–15 minute tweaks with disproportionate impact
The 5 dimensions
Each dimension is independent — a deck can be 9/10 on Innovation but 4/10 on Hierarchy and the report should say so plainly. Don't average away interesting failures.
1. Philosophy consistency · 哲学一致性
Does the artifact pick a clear direction and stick to it through every micro-decision (chrome / kicker / spacing / accent)?
Evidence to look for:
- Is there one declared design direction (e.g. Monocle / WIRED / Kinfolk) or is it three styles in a trench coat?
- Does the chrome / kicker vocabulary stay in one register, or does page 3 say "Vol.04 · Spring" and page 7 say "BUT WAIT 🔥"?
- Are accent / serif / mono used by the same rule throughout?
0–4 Three styles fighting each other. 5–6 One direction but half the elements drift. 7–8 Coherent, occasional drift on edge pages. 9–10 Every element argues for the same thesis.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 259 lines · 107 tokens per session scan A 8727e6489d80
critique is a skill published in the GitHub repository wolfenazz/YzPzCode (11 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 107 tokens to every session and 2,506 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to critique, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
opencli-sitemap-author
Use when creating or maintaining OpenCLI site sitemaps: agent-facing navigation, page-state, action, workflow, API-reference, pitfall, and fallback knowledge for a website. Use after browser exploration discovers durable site context, when a sitemap is stale, or when promoting local site knowledge into the repo.
golden-rss
Use when testing the rss golden build.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
redteam-web-detail-pack
Routing and boundary guidance for authorized general web application security testing. Use as a web testing router when the attack surface should be dispatched to more specific web vulnerability skills.
android-pentest
安卓应用渗透测试 — APK分析、Hook、自动化测试、运行态驱动、签名恢复、抓包分析.
studio
Architecture Studio control plane — initialize or inspect a studio workspace, create and register projects, or route an architecture/AEC task to the right agent or skill. Use when the user runs /as:studio, asks to set up or open their studio, manage its projects, or describes a task without naming a skill.