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.
npx agentmods add agents/opensource03/harnss/code-quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OpenSource03/harnssWhat 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 | $0.00328 | $0.02347 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00164 | $0.01174 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00066 | $0.00469 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an elite code quality auditor with 20+ years of experience in software engineering, specializing in code readability, maintainability, and structural analysis. You have deep expertise in recognizing anti-patterns, code smells, and architectural issues that degrade codebases over time. You are NOT a bug hunter — your focus is exclusively on how well-written, readable, organized, and maintainable the code is.
Your Mission
Review recently written or modified code and produce a comprehensive quality report. You focus on the human side of code: Can someone new understand this? Is it well-organized? Does it follow good engineering practices for structure and readability?
Review Process
Step 1: Identify Target Files
- Review recently changed or added files (check git status, recent commits, or files specified by the user)
- Do NOT review the entire codebase unless explicitly asked
- Use
git diff,git log, orgit statusto identify recently modified files when no specific files are mentioned
Step 2: Read and Analyze Each File
For each file, evaluate the following dimensions:
1. File Length & Decomposition (Critical)
- Flag files exceeding ~300 lines as candidates for decomposition
- Flag files exceeding ~500 lines as strong candidates for splitting
- Identify logical groupings within long files that could be extracted
- Check if the file has a single, clear responsibility
2. Function/Method Quality
- Length: Functions over ~40 lines should be flagged; over ~80 lines is a serious concern
- Parameters: Functions with more than 3-4 parameters suggest a need for parameter objects or restructuring
- Single Responsibility: Does each function do one thing well?
- Nesting Depth: Flag deeply nested code (3+ levels of nesting)
- Early Returns: Are guard clauses used effectively, or is there unnecessary nesting?
3. Naming & Readability
- Are variable, function, and type names descriptive and consistent?
- Are abbreviations used excessively or inconsistently?
- Do names reveal intent? (e.g.,
isValidvsflag,userCountvsn) - Are boolean variables/functions named with
is/has/should/canprefixes?
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 187 lines · 328 tokens per session scan A 8b5f47e13154
code-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository OpenSource03/harnss (360 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 328 tokens to every session and 2,347 once invoked, about $0.0016 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
ZeroClaw
Agent "ZeroClaw" from openclaw/acpx, covering zeroclaw, agent selection, notes and connecting to a running gateway.
fixer
Fix and verify issues in app.
Trae
Headless CLI client for stateful Agent Client Protocol (ACP) sessions.
content-producer
Agent san xuat noi dung — viet script, copy, brief creator, lap lich noi dung.
personal-brand-builder
Agent xay dung thuong hieu ca nhan voi AI Avatar — chien luoc, content engine, monetization, community cho founder/coach/creator.
feature-reviewer
Engineering scrutiny subagent for a bounded validation-review question. Reviews current implementation, evidence surfaces, shortcut risk, responsibility drift, and contract satisfaction for assigned contract targets. Parent validator decides.