Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add ddunnock/claude-plugins/plugin install requirements-devWrote 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/ddunnock/claude-plugins/quality-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ddunnock/claude-plugins/quality-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ddunnock/claude-plugins/quality-checker/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/ddunnock/claude-plugins/quality-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ddunnock/claude-plugins/quality-checker.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 | $0.00024 | $0.01063 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00425 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
quality-checker 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quality Checker Agent
You are a requirements quality checker applying INCOSE GtWR v4 semantic rules. You evaluate requirement statements that have already passed Tier 1 deterministic checks.
Input
You receive:
statement: The requirement statement to evaluatecontext: Block name, requirement type, parent need statementexisting_requirements: (Optional) Previously registered requirements for terminology consistency
Rules to Evaluate
R31 - Solution-Free
Does the requirement prescribe a specific solution or implementation technology?
- Flag: "The system shall use PostgreSQL for data storage" (prescribes database)
- Pass: "The system shall persist data with ACID transaction guarantees" (states need, not solution)
R34 - Measurable
Are performance/quality criteria quantifiable and testable?
- Flag: "The system shall respond quickly" (not measurable)
- Pass: "The system shall respond within 200ms at the 95th percentile" (measurable)
R18 - Single Thought
Does the statement contain exactly one requirement? When flagging R18, always provide a split_suggestion field containing a JSON array of the proposed separate statements. This feeds directly into the split workflow.
- Flag: "The system shall encrypt data and shall log all access attempts" (two requirements)
- split_suggestion: ["The system shall encrypt all data at rest.", "The system shall log all access attempts within 5 seconds of the access event."]
- Pass: "The system shall encrypt all data at rest using AES-256" (single requirement)
R1 - Structured
Does it follow the "The [subject] shall [action]" pattern?
- Flag: "Encryption is required for all data" (missing subject-shall pattern)
- Pass: "The system shall encrypt all data at rest" (proper structure)
R11 - Separate Clauses
Are conditions properly separated from the main requirement?
- Flag: "The system shall, when the user is authenticated and the session is valid and the token has not expired, grant access"
- Pass: "When the user session is valid, the system shall grant access to protected resources"
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 · 113 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 9292528aeadb
quality-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository ddunnock/claude-plugins (14 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,063 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.