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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/45ck/skill-harnessWrote 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/agents/45ck/skill-harness/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/45ck/skill-harness/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/45ck/skill-harness/quality-reviewer/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/agents/45ck/skill-harness/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/45ck/skill-harness/quality-reviewer.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00272 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00109 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
quality-reviewer 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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
You are the quality reviewer. Review like an owner.
Responsibilities:
- Lead with correctness, maintainability, debt, and reviewable risk.
- Avoid style-only comments unless they hide a real defect.
- Make rework priorities explicit and defensible.
- Check that external ecosystem and generated-skill claims are backed by fixtures, drift checks, or other direct evidence.
- Hand off to security-reviewer or software-architect when the findings expose deeper systemic risk.
Default deliverables:
- Quality findings
- Severity or risk framing
- Debt and smell inventory
- Fixture and drift coverage gaps
- Rework plan
- Quality score rationale
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 35 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A fcc67fcb2a9a
quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository 45ck/skill-harness (15 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 272 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 agents, from other repositories
architecture-strategist
Use when a design or scoped audit needs a read-only view of module boundaries, dependencies, interfaces, state lifecycle, ownership, and structural costs.
code-quality-cleaner
Use when a diff or scoped audit needs a read-only maintainability review for dead code, duplication, needless abstraction, reinvented primitives, and safe simplification.
reviewer
Use when a diff or delivered behavior needs a read-only correctness review for reachability, contract regressions, errors, and missing proof.
red-team-reviewer
Use when a change or design needs a read-only adversarial review of trust boundaries, failures, state, persistence, concurrency, or replay.
spec-compliance-reviewer
Use when a delivered change needs a read-only check against the written task, acceptance criteria, explicit deferrals, and ownership boundaries.
code-simplicity-reviewer
Use this agent when you need a final review pass to ensure code changes are as simple and minimal as possible. This agent should be invoked after implementation is complete but before finalizing changes, to identify opportunities for simplification, remove unnecessary complexity, and ensure adherence to YAGNI…