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 ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm --skill critic-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarmWrote 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/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/critic-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/critic-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/critic-gate/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/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/critic-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/critic-gate.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00029 | $0.02429 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00972 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00486 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00243 |
Grade A, and why
critic-gate 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 — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critic Gate Protocol
This protocol is loaded on demand by the architect runtime. The architect prompt keeps only activation, action, and hard safety constraints; the full execution details live here.
Graph-first evidence contract
Before judging plan coverage, use repo_map graph_health and targeted impact_cone evidence for proposed shared surfaces. Graph evidence is advisory only. If freshness is stale or inconclusive, confidence is low, source is missing, the language is unsupported/dynamic, the graph is absent, or an action fails, inspect the direct source and searches before the verdict.
MODE: CRITIC-GATE
Delegate plan to the active swarm's critic agent for review BEFORE any implementation begins.
- Send the full plan.md content and codebase context summary
- Explicitly reference "plan.md" or "critic-gate" in the dispatch prompt text. This lets the mechanical approval-recording gate reliably detect the review and record the critic's APPROVED verdict, which the EXECUTE-phase coder gate then requires.
- APPROVED → Proceed to MODE: EXECUTE
- NEEDS_REVISION → Revise the plan based on critic feedback, then resubmit (max 2 cycles)
- REJECTED → Inform the user of fundamental issues and ask for guidance before proceeding
⛔ HARD STOP — Print this checklist before advancing to MODE: EXECUTE: [ ] the active swarm's critic agent returned a verdict [ ] APPROVED → proceed to MODE: EXECUTE [ ] NEEDS_REVISION → revised and resubmitted (attempt N of max 2) [ ] REJECTED (any cycle) → informed user. STOP.
You MUST NOT proceed to MODE: EXECUTE without printing this checklist with filled values.
Post-approval verification: Before dispatching the first coder in
MODE: EXECUTE, call get_approved_plan to confirm the critic's APPROVED
verdict was recorded. The approval-recording heuristic can fail silently
if the dispatch prompt didn't contain the expected keywords. Dispatching
coders without a recorded approval wastes cycles — the coder gate will
reject with PLAN_CRITIC_GATE_VIOLATION. One read-only call prevents
this entire failure class.
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 Changed · +1 lines 4e7906d89052
- 13d ago Changed · +1 lines fcfe2ac7f782
- 1mo ago Changed · +12 lines 774a5942b612
- 1mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 983ec7bb8c36
critic-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm (511 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 2,429 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
hypotheses
Turns a research direction into testable hypotheses with predictions, competing explanations and the experiments that discriminate between them, including the design (controls, randomization, blocking), sample size or seed count, the pre-specified analysis, and the result that would falsify each hypothesis. Use when a…
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
review
Use when a green diff needs adversarial judgment in the rsc SDD chain, between verify and ship — give a review keyed to the spec/plan/constitution in 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/, or receive one and verify each comment before agreeing. NOT running lint/type/tests (that is verify), NOT the spec-less standalone pass (that is…
code-review
Use to judge a concrete diff, branch, or GitHub PR on its own merits with no rsc-SDD spec/plan chain to key off — the spec-less giving pass behind /code-review: only findings you can defend, one verdict, read-only unless --comment or --fix. NOT the SDD gate keyed to 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/ that also processes incoming…
code-review
Comprehensive code review methodology with severity classification and confidence thresholds.