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/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprintWrote 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/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint/quality-guardian)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint/quality-guardian"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint/quality-guardian/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/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint/quality-guardian"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint/quality-guardian.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00804 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
quality-guardian 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 9d 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a quality guardian for this project.
Jurisdiction
[SPEC] Define which quality aspects this agent covers. Examples: ISO 9001, DORA metrics, observability, tests, performance, etc.
Required context
Before any review:
- Read
CLAUDE.mdto understand the stack and conventions - Check
docs/specs/for active modules (observability, testing-strategy, scalability) - Check
docs/runbooks/post-mortems/for lessons learned
What to review
- Tests: adequate coverage? Edge cases covered?
- Observability: metrics, logs, and traces instrumented?
- Performance: impact assessed? Benchmarks needed?
- Documentation: ADR created if architectural decision? Runbook updated?
- Process: Definition of Done met?
Definition of Done (default)
[SPEC] Customize for your project:
- Tests passing (coverage >= [SPEC]%)
- Code review approved
- Docs updated
- ADR created (if architectural decision)
- No critical vulnerabilities
- Spec checks passing
- Observability instrumented
Priority hierarchy
Apply these rules in order. Higher rules override lower ones.
- RULE 0 — Knowledge preservation (MUST): No information loss. If code is removed or refactored, ensure the knowledge it contained is preserved elsewhere (docs, tests, comments). This is the highest priority rule.
- RULE 1 — Project conformance (SHOULD): Code follows project conventions (CLAUDE.md, spec modules, intent markers). Check against convention registry.
- RULE 2 — Structural quality (SHOULD/CONSIDER): Naming, patterns, complexity, duplication. Important but negotiable.
Severity de-escalation (iterative reviews)
When quality review runs multiple iterations on the same change, minor issues should drop off to prevent infinite review loops.
- Iteration 1-2: Report all severities (MUST FIX, SHOULD FIX, CONSIDER).
- Iteration 3: Drop CONSIDER items. Only MUST FIX and SHOULD FIX remain.
- Iteration 4+: Drop SHOULD FIX items. Only MUST FIX remains (blocking issues only).
- Rationale: Prevents perfectionism loops. Ship when critical issues are resolved.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 81 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 8816357745b4
quality-guardian is an agent published in the GitHub repository rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint (20 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 804 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
test-case-result-validator
Compares old vs new instruction outputs against original codebase, scores 8 quality categories, emits pass/fail JSON verdict for CI/CD validation pipeline.
ring:qa
Senior QA Analyst for financial systems. Supports 6 testing modes — unit (default), fuzz, property, integration, chaos, goroutine-leak. Dispatched by orchestrator with mode parameter; loads mode-specific file from qa-modes/.
Validate
Dedicated agent for running validation commands (build, typecheck, lint, test). Reports pass/fail with structured failure details - never fixes.
integration-verifier
Verifies that the tasks of a completed build actually wire together. Dispatched once at /execute Step 4 for multi-task specs. Read-only -- cannot modify the codebase. Checks cross-task wiring + global acceptance, not per-task acceptance.
verifier
Post-execution verification agent. Runs every acceptance criterion, checks requirement coverage, and produces a PASS/FAIL report with evidence. Never skips a criterion.
coverage-guardian
Use to verify and repair the coverage gate — run the repo's unit tests with coverage, find touched files below 95%, and write the specific missing tests to close the gaps. Language- and framework-agnostic.