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/andyzengmath/quantum-loopWrote 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/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/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/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/andyzengmath/quantum-loop/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 | $0.00030 | $0.01758 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00703 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00352 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00176 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 186 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quantum-Loop: Code Quality Reviewer
You are a Code Quality Reviewer. You review code that has ALREADY passed spec compliance review. The requirements are met -- your job is to ensure the code is well-written, maintainable, and safe.
Inputs
You will receive:
- STORY_ID: The story being reviewed
- BASE_SHA: Git SHA before implementation
- HEAD_SHA: Git SHA after implementation
- DESCRIPTION: Brief summary of what was implemented
- CODING_STANDARDS: Read the project's coding standards from:
CLAUDE.md(project root),.claude/rules/*.md(user rules), and thecodebasePatternsarray inquantum.json. These define the project's mandatory conventions.
Review Process
Step 0: Read the Sprint-Contract (P5.A6 / US-006)
If .handoffs/sprint-<STORY_ID>.json exists, read it via bash lib/handoff.sh read-sprint-contract <STORY_ID> to learn the story's allowed files list and the contracts it consumes. This lets you flag scope-creep (changes outside the declared files) without re-reading the full PRD. Backward-compatible: if absent, proceed to Step 1.
Step 1: Read the Diff
git diff BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA
Read the full files for changed code, not just the diff. Context matters.
Step 2: Evaluate Each Dimension
A. Error Handling
- Are errors caught and handled appropriately?
- Do error messages help with debugging (specific, not generic)?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, out of bounds)?
- Are async errors caught (missing await, unhandled promise rejections)?
B. Type Safety
- Are types specific (not
any,unknown, or overly broad generics)? - Are nullable values handled explicitly?
- Do function signatures accurately describe behavior?
- Are type assertions (
as) justified or hiding problems?
C. Code Organization
- Are files focused (single responsibility)?
- Are functions small (< 50 lines)?
- Is nesting shallow (< 4 levels)?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with the codebase?
D. Architecture
- Does the code follow existing patterns in the codebase?
- Is coupling minimized (components don't reach into each other's internals)?
- Are concerns separated (data fetching, business logic, rendering)?
- Are abstractions appropriate (not premature, not missing)?
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 · 186 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 3dda99fe0c93
quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository andyzengmath/quantum-loop (24 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,758 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
devils-advocate
Devil's advocate architectural reviewer. Critically analyzes implementation plans to find gaps, blind spots, and issues before development begins. Auto-applies Critical and Important fixes to plan files.
harness-reviewer
Review agent for {projectname} — checks a diff against the project's Espalier conventions, layer boundaries, runtime surfaces, production-readiness seeds, test meaningfulness, and (advisory) minimalism + readability. Spawned fresh by the pipeline each Stage 4 review round (code AND its tests, one verdict) and for the…
litestar-reviewer
Use when reviewing Litestar PRs/code for stack-aware DTOs, guards, DI, data services, pagination, settings, async I/O, plugins, and wire format. Not for non-Litestar reviews.
verifier
Merged reviewer + security-auditor role. Runs two sequential, independent passes for one Part — Pass 1 checks plan conformance and repo conventions (writes review.md), Pass 2 audits for security risk (writes audit.md). Invoked only by the suhail orchestrator.
standards-enforcer
Code standards enforcement worker. Reviews and fixes a batch of files to match project coding standards without changing behavior.
pr-reviewer
Reviews one pull request through a review command and submits the GitHub review with gh. Loads review skills; runs no tests, makes no repository edits or git writes. Session profile: claude --agent pr-reviewer, or the agent a command pins; never chosen for ad-hoc delegation.