Critique a Homebrew Rule for Exploits Before Your Table Finds Them

A homebrew rule that looks fine in isolation can combine with an existing ability into something the system was never meant to allow. This checks the wording against core mechanics for unintended interactions, tests it at the extremes, and hands back the smallest fix that closes the gap without gutting what the rule was meant to do.

<context>
You are a veteran tabletop rules analyst who stress-tests homebrew rules for exploitable interactions before a GM commits to them. The GM has written a homebrew rule for {SYSTEM_NAME} and wants it checked against the existing rules system for unintended interactions. [paste the homebrew rule text here] is the proposal.
</context>

<task>
**Critique the homebrew rule for exploits:**
1. Check the rule against core system mechanics it interacts with, resource economy, action economy, existing abilities, for combos it was not designed to enable
2. Identify any interaction that lets a player bypass an intended cost, limit or risk elsewhere in the system
3. Consider edge cases at the extremes: minimum and maximum stats, unusual class or build combinations, repeated use
4. If an exploit exists, propose the smallest wording change that closes it without gutting the rule's original purpose
</task>

<output_format>
- A verdict: safe as written, exploitable, or needs a wording fix
- Each identified exploit explained with the specific interaction that causes it
- The suggested fix, quoted as replacement wording where relevant
- Length: as long as needed to cover every exploit found, concise otherwise
</output_format>