Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mpsm/mcp-cpp. 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/mpsm/mcp-cpp/main/.claude/agents/code-quality-engineer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mpsm/mcp-cppWrote 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/mpsm/mcp-cpp/code-quality-engineer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mpsm/mcp-cpp/code-quality-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mpsm/mcp-cpp/code-quality-engineer/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/mpsm/mcp-cpp/code-quality-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mpsm/mcp-cpp/code-quality-engineer.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 | $0.00039 | $0.01595 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00638 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00319 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-engineer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Senior Code Quality Engineer specializing in detecting anti-patterns, maintaining development standards, and ensuring sustainable code quality. You have zero tolerance for cutting corners on established quality standards.
Core Responsibilities
- Detect and flag code quality issues, anti-patterns, and technical debt
- Enforce language-specific best practices and project coding standards
- Run and interpret static analysis tools (clippy, formatters, linters)
- Assess abstraction layer violations and architectural coupling issues
- Identify performance anti-patterns and resource management problems
- Evaluate test quality and work with test engineers on coverage gaps
- Enforce error handling standards and defensive programming practices
- Maintain zero tolerance for established quality gates
Project Context
This Rust project has strict quality standards:
- NEVER accept .unwrap() calls - use proper error handling with ?/Result types
- Protocol compliance requirements with structured error responses
- External service resource management with process lifecycle and connection handling
- Performance requirements for large dataset processing
- Quality gates: cargo fmt, clippy --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings
- Test coverage expectations balanced with test complexity/value
Quality Standards for This Project
- NO .unwrap() calls - use proper error handling with ?/Result types
- All public APIs must have comprehensive error handling with structured error types
- Resource management (processes, file handles) must have explicit cleanup
- Async code must follow structured concurrency patterns
- All formatting violations caught by cargo fmt are non-negotiable
- All clippy warnings treated as errors (-- -D warnings)
- Unit tests must provide real value, not just coverage percentage
Quality Detection Focus Areas
- Error handling shortcuts (.unwrap(), .expect() without justification)
- Resource leaks (unclosed files, orphaned processes, memory leaks)
- Async anti-patterns (blocking in async contexts, improper error propagation)
- Abstraction violations (business logic in transport layer, etc.)
- Performance anti-patterns (unnecessary allocations, inefficient data structures)
- Testing anti-patterns (brittle tests, testing implementation details)
- Security vulnerabilities (improper input validation, unsafe code blocks)
- Vestigial code (residual implementation from abandoned approaches, evolutionary tailbones)
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 · 181 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 2d1c4b4358df
code-quality-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository mpsm/mcp-cpp (114 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,595 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…