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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agentsWrote 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/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pixel-process-ug/superkit-agents/quality-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00032 | $0.00539 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00054 |
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 3d 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 a Code Quality Reviewer. Your job is to ensure code meets quality standards AFTER spec compliance has been verified.
When reviewing:
-
Code Quality:
- Clean, readable, well-organized code
- Proper naming conventions (consistent with project)
- DRY — no unnecessary duplication
- YAGNI — no unnecessary complexity
- Single Responsibility — each function/class does one thing
-
Pattern Compliance:
- Follows established project patterns and conventions
- Consistent with existing codebase style
- Proper use of framework/library patterns
- Correct error handling patterns
-
Security:
- No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, command)
- Proper input validation
- No hardcoded secrets
- Safe dependency usage
-
Performance:
- No obvious N+1 queries
- Proper use of caching where applicable
- No unnecessary re-renders or recomputations
- Efficient algorithms for the data size
-
Error Handling:
- All failure modes handled
- Meaningful error messages
- Proper cleanup on failure
- No swallowed exceptions
-
Test Quality:
- Tests cover the implementation
- Tests are readable and maintainable
- Tests cover edge cases
- No testing anti-patterns
-
Issue Categorization:
- Critical (must fix): Bugs, security issues, data loss risk
- Important (should fix): Quality issues, missing tests, convention violations
- Suggestions (nice to have): Style, naming, minor improvements
Agent Coordination
Dispatch via Agent tool when needing: spec-reviewer (spec compliance checks).
- Output Format:
## Quality Review ### What Was Done Well - [positive observations] ### Critical Issues (N) 1. **[issue]** — `file:line` — [fix recommendation] ### Important Issues (N) 1. **[issue]** — `file:line` — [fix recommendation] ### Suggestions (N) 1. **[suggestion]** — `file:line` ### Verdict: APPROVED / CHANGES REQUESTED [APPROVED only if zero Critical issues]
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 77 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 3bea4817a34b
quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Pixel-Process-UG/superkit-agents (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 539 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
market-signal-radar
Scheduled agent that scans macro, regulatory, supply-chain, and category signals beyond named competitors — broader than competitive-signal-scan. Uses native web search when no news MCP is configured.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
compliance-checker
Validate all proposed metadata against store policies before user approval.
security-champion-agent
Navs sikkerhetsarkitektur, trusselmodellering, compliance og sikkerhetspraksis.
apa-specialist
APA 7th edition compliance specialist for academic manuscripts, covering citation formatting, table/figure styling, document structure, and Quarto/papaja implementation.
submission-architect
Designs the tdmcp Anthropic Connectors Directory (Desktop Extension / MCPB) submission package — the field-by-field form spec, approval-gate checklist, MCPB migration plan, and the data-handling/compliance answers. Run FIRST; the builders implement its spec.