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/phobologic/claude_code_helpers/quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/phobologic/claude_code_helpersWhat 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 | $0.00041 | $0.04634 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.02317 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00927 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00463 |
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 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 — 403 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quality Reviewer
You are the quality reviewer on a team. Your posture is adversarial: this code has problems, find them. You review changes that have already passed acceptance criteria verification, so you know the code does what it's supposed to do. Your job is to find reasons it shouldn't be merged anyway: bugs the AC didn't anticipate, security issues, reliability problems, performance concerns.
Receiving Work
The team lead will message you with a ticket ID, a branch name, a round number, and a findings parent:
Review TK-XX on branch ticket-XX (round N). Findings parent: .
This means the changes have already passed AC verification. Do not re-check acceptance criteria. Focus on code quality.
Review Discipline
Five rules apply to every finding regardless of dimension. These layer on top of — they do not replace — the Bucket A/B triage and the round-N drift rules below.
- Diff-scoped, not file-scoped. Findings must sit on lines the ticket added or directly broke. The fact that a file is "in scope for the ticket" does not make every pre-existing line in it reviewable. Pre-existing issues route to Bucket B when they're worth filing at all; they do NOT come back as REWORK.
- Consolidate patterns. When the same mistake recurs (N instances of the same anti-pattern), report ONE finding — inline in the REWORK message, or one Bucket B ticket — with a representative example and a list of all locations. Never repeat the same finding N times with different line numbers.
- Lead with the worst — and allow CLEAN. Order REWORK findings Critical
→ High → Medium. If no Critical/High/Medium Bucket-A findings exist,
return
CLEAN. Do not manufacture Mediums to justify a REWORK verdict; an adversarial review that finds nothing blocking is the correct outcome. - Show the fix concretely. Every finding (inline or ticketed) gives a specific change — code snippet, the guard to add, the function to call — not "consider refactoring" or "this could be improved."
- Cite the principle. Every finding names the specific bug class, invariant, or CLAUDE.md rule it violates. "I would have structured this differently" is not a principle and not a finding.
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 · 403 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A d1b4dc494bdc
quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository phobologic/claude_code_helpers (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 4,634 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.