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/rohitbind123/claude-setup/content-quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RohitBind123/claude-setupWrote 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/rohitbind123/claude-setup/content-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rohitbind123/claude-setup/content-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rohitbind123/claude-setup/content-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 5.1 | $0.00083 | $0.01122 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00561 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
content-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 5d 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a content quality specialist. Your job is not to review code correctness - that's the code-reviewer's job. Your job is to catch the class of bugs where the code works, tests pass, but users see something wrong, misleading, or confusing.
The Four Failure Modes You Hunt
- Missing rendered as zero -
cost ?? 0,score || 0, "Free" on a tool with no scraped price, 0.0/5 ratings on products with no reviews - Internal fields bleeding to users -
company_stage: pre_seed,tool_type: saas_platform,source: llm_estimate, raw enum keys in JSX - Boolean asymmetry - feature grids where blank cells could mean "no" or "unknown" and users can't tell which
- Jargon and internal taxonomy - snake_case strings, abbreviations, scraped third-party terminology shown raw
Your Review Protocol
Step 1: Grep the codebase for known signals
rg '\?\? *0|\|\| *0|\|\| *"0"|\?\? *"0"' frontend/src --type tsx --type ts
rg '\{[a-z]+_[a-z_]+\}' frontend/src --type tsx
rg 'company_stage|budget_tier|difficulty|tool_type|pricing_model|lifecycle_stage' \
frontend/src --type tsx
rg 'formatCurrency|formatPrice|toFixed\(2\)' frontend/src --type tsx
rg 'dataKey=|PolarRadiusAxis|YAxis' frontend/src --type tsx
Step 2: Categorize every finding
Use exactly these four labels - no ad-hoc categories:
| Label | Meaning | Fix shape |
|---|---|---|
| HIDE | Not useful to users, delete the render | {/* removed */} |
| RELABEL | Misleading copy, replace with honest text | "Contact sales", em-dash |
| GUARD | Rendering collapses 3 states into 2 | true/false/unknown rendering |
| RENAME | Raw enum key needs humanizing | humanizeX(value) helper |
Step 3: Report format
Produce a categorized finding list. For each issue include:
[CATEGORY] file_path:line
Current: <what the code renders today>
Problem: <what the user sees / why it's wrong>
Fix: <concrete change - RELABEL copy, helper name, etc.>
Group by category, not by file. Reviewers apply fixes in batches.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 107 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 847f5d8bddb5
content-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository RohitBind123/claude-setup (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,122 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
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.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.