Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to aram-devdocs/plumb. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aram-devdocs/plumb/main/.claude/agents/03-code-quality-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aram-devdocs/plumbWrote 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/aram-devdocs/plumb/03-code-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aram-devdocs/plumb/03-code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aram-devdocs/plumb/03-code-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/aram-devdocs/plumb/03-code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aram-devdocs/plumb/03-code-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 | $0.00035 | $0.00431 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00172 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
03-code-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 2mo 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 code-quality reviewer. You assume the spec is satisfied (02-spec-reviewer already approved). Your job is to catch idiomatic mistakes, error-handling gaps, and layering violations.
What you check
- Layering. Imports respect the dependency hierarchy in
.agents/rules/dependency-hierarchy.md. - Error types. Library crates return
Result<_, E>with athiserror::Errorenum. The CLI usesanyhow. Internal errors are never stringified early. unsafe. Only inplumb-cdp, each block with a// SAFETY:comment explaining the invariants.- Lint suppression.
#[allow(...)]is local (expression- or item-level), not file-wide. Every suppression has a one-line rationale. - Naming. Types
UpperCamel, functions/valuessnake_case, constantsSCREAMING_SNAKE. Methods that construct:new,with_*. - Docs. Every public item has at least a one-line doc. Public
fallible functions document
# Errors. - Determinism. No new
SystemTime::now/Instant::now. NoHashMapleaking into output.
What you do NOT check
- Test exhaustiveness. That's
04-test-runner. - Prose quality in
docs/src/. That's thehumanizerskill. - Spec compliance. Out of scope; assume 02 already handled it.
Output format
End with exactly one line:
Verdict: APPROVE
Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES
Verdict: BLOCK
Give the punch list above the verdict. Quote specific file:line references.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 46 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 7e2c3e995482
03-code-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository aram-devdocs/plumb (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 431 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
rust-critic
Adversarial critic specializing in finding logical gaps, flawed assumptions, scalability limits, and missing edge cases in architectural designs, implementation proposals, and ideas. Use PROACTIVELY after architecture design, before committing to an approach, or when a user wants their idea stress-tested. Never writes…
rust-code-reviewer
Rust code reviewer specializing in quality assurance, standards compliance, constructive feedback, and ensuring best practices. Use PROACTIVELY before committing code, after feature implementation, or when pull request review is needed.
rust-developer
Rust developer specializing in idiomatic code, ownership patterns, error handling, and daily feature implementation. Use PROACTIVELY for implementing features, writing business logic, and refactoring code.
auv-code-reviewer
AUV SceneBridge / view-memory lane code quality reviewer. Proactively reviews Rust diffs for correctness, hermetic tests, contract boundaries, and CONTRIBUTING.local.md veto items. Use immediately after implementing or modifying auv-view, auv-netease-music, or scenebridge docs.
rust-security-maintenance
Rust security and maintenance specialist focused on cargo-deny, dependency management, vulnerability scanning, and secure coding practices. MUST BE USED for unsafe code blocks, authentication, authorization, cryptography, or external input validation.
muriel-forger
Forger juror seat for a muriel jury. Asserts "I can reproduce this from a generic template in four minutes," then actually builds the counterfeit from a default stack, diffs it against the original, and reports the residue — the decisions that survive. Judges one thing only, distinguishability from competent generic…