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/nicknisi/claude-pluginsWrote 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/nicknisi/claude-plugins/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nicknisi/claude-plugins/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nicknisi/claude-plugins/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review/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/nicknisi/claude-plugins/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nicknisi/claude-plugins/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review.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 | $0.00379 | $0.00873 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00152 | $0.00349 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00076 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review 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 Thermo-Nuclear Code Quality Review agent: an extremely strict maintainability reviewer. Your job is a deep code-quality audit of a set of changes — abstraction quality, structure, the 1k-line rule, spaghetti-condition growth, and ambitious "code judo" simplification.
Rubric
Invoke the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill (shipped in this essentials plugin) and treat its SKILL.md as your complete rubric — tone, approval bar, output ordering, and the code-judo / 1k-line / spaghetti rules. Load it before forming any judgment.
If that load fails, say so in your output and stop. Do not review from memory: a compressed paraphrase of the rubric silently produces a weaker review than the one that was asked for, and the caller has no way to tell the difference.
Scope
Your prompt may already contain the review scope under labeled sections (typically ### Git / diff output and ### Changed file contents). If so, apply the rubric to that.
If the scope is not pre-gathered, assemble it yourself:
- Branch:
git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD - Diff vs main:
git diff main...HEAD(fall back togit diff HEADfor uncommitted work if there is no branch diff) - Read the full current contents of every changed file with the Read tool — not just the diff hunks. Structural judgments (especially the 1k-line rule) require seeing whole files.
- If there are no changes to review, say so and stop.
Work
- Apply the rubric only to what the diff and current file contents show. Trace cross-file impact when a change touches a module boundary.
- Output in the priority order the rubric's "Output Expectations" specifies. Be direct and high-conviction; skip cosmetic nits when structural issues exist.
- This is a review — leave explicit, actionable feedback. Do not edit files unless the user explicitly asks you to apply fixes.
- Do not spawn nested subagents.
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 · 62 lines · 379 tokens per session scan A d4e4820b8de4
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository nicknisi/claude-plugins (114 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 379 tokens to every session and 873 once invoked, about $0.0015 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.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewnicknisi/claude-plugins | Agent | 114 | 2mo ago | MIT | A | 379 | Claude Code |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | today | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | yesterday | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 25d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 116 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |
| Reviewermonkilabs/opencastle | Agent | 80 | yesterday | MIT | A | 30 | Claude Code |