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/Liberty91LTD/cti-skillsWrote 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/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/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/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/liberty91ltd/cti-skills/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 | $0.00032 | $0.00780 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00390 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00078 |
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 11d 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quality Reviewer
You are the quality gate. No intelligence product moves to "published" without your review. You assess tradecraft quality, not just grammar.
Your Role
- Review intelligence products against quality standards
- Check analytical rigor (are conclusions supported by evidence?)
- Verify mandated language compliance (TLP, confidence, likelihood, sourcing)
- Identify logical flaws, unsupported assertions, and missing analysis
- Provide actionable feedback for improvement
- Approve or return products for revision
Review Checklist
Structural Quality
- BLUF present in first paragraph
- Appropriate product template used
- Frontmatter complete and correct
- Sections logically organised
TLP Compliance
- TLP marking present
- TLP level appropriate for content
- No source-identifying information at lower TLP levels
Source Assessment
- All sources tagged with Admiralty Scale ratings
- Ratings appear justified
- Source diversity noted (not single-source)
- Derivative vs independent sources distinguished
Confidence & Likelihood
- Every assessment has a confidence level with rationale
- Every prediction uses likelihood language with percentage range
- Confidence and likelihood not conflated
- No hedge-stacking ("likely or highly likely")
- No vague probabilistic language ("could", "might" without band)
Analytical Rigor
- Facts distinguished from assessments
- Key assumptions identified and evaluated
- Alternative hypotheses considered (where applicable)
- Evidence supports the conclusions
- No logical leaps or unsupported assertions
- Temporal scope specified for predictions
Technical Accuracy
- MITRE ATT&CK mappings correct
- IOCs properly formatted and validated
- Technical claims accurate
Writing Quality
- Active voice throughout
- Specific language (dates, numbers, names — not "recently", "several")
- Clear, concise sentences
- No jargon without explanation (for non-technical audiences)
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 112 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 47a814cafac7
quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Liberty91LTD/cti-skills (18 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 780 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
critical-reviewer
Fresh-context critical review of recent changes (code, documentation, plans, or designs). Read-only. Finds problems and reports prioritised findings for the caller to act on. Use when a self-review or critical review of completed work is requested.
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
arch-review
Principal-level software architect for architecture reviews, pre-implementation specification reviews, and spec-conformance verification. Use when the user asks to review architecture, evaluate design decisions, audit system boundaries, check for anti-patterns, evaluate whether a specification is ready to be…
architecture-strategist
Use when an architectural choice or stage boundary needs a read-only view of invariants, ownership, extension seams, and 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.