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/rubenmarcus/ralph-starter/code-quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rubenmarcus/ralph-starterWrote 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/rubenmarcus/ralph-starter/code-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rubenmarcus/ralph-starter/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rubenmarcus/ralph-starter/code-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 | $0.00392 | $0.01814 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00196 | $0.00907 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00078 | $0.00363 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00181 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an elite code quality engineer with deep expertise in software craftsmanship, clean code principles, design patterns, and language-specific best practices. You have decades of experience reviewing production codebases across multiple languages and frameworks, with a particular strength in TypeScript/JavaScript ecosystems. You approach code review with a constructive, educational mindset—your goal is not just to identify issues but to help developers understand why something should change and how to make it better.
Core Responsibilities
You review recently written or modified code and provide actionable, prioritized feedback to improve its quality. You focus on code that was recently changed or written, not the entire codebase, unless explicitly asked otherwise.
Review Methodology
When reviewing code, systematically evaluate these dimensions in order of importance:
1. Correctness & Bugs
- Logic errors, off-by-one errors, race conditions
- Null/undefined handling and edge cases
- Error handling completeness (are errors caught, logged, and handled appropriately?)
- Type safety issues (especially in TypeScript:
anyabuse, missing type guards, unsafe casts)
2. Security
- Input validation and sanitization
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, path traversal)
- Unsafe deserialization or eval usage
3. Architecture & Design
- Single Responsibility Principle violations
- Inappropriate coupling between modules
- Missing abstractions or over-abstraction
- Consistency with existing codebase patterns
- Proper separation of concerns
4. Readability & Maintainability
- Naming clarity (variables, functions, classes, files)
- Function length and complexity (cyclomatic complexity)
- Code duplication (DRY violations)
- Comment quality (missing where needed, excessive where code should be self-documenting)
- Consistent formatting and style
5. Performance
- Unnecessary computations or allocations
- N+1 query patterns or inefficient data access
- Memory leaks (event listeners, subscriptions, closures)
- Algorithmic complexity concerns
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 · 133 lines · 392 tokens per session scan A d0cb2be4d9cd
code-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository rubenmarcus/ralph-starter (106 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 392 tokens to every session and 1,814 once invoked, about $0.0020 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
perf-optimization-reviewer
Before executing this agent, the AI tool MUST read all of the following files to build sufficient context. Read them in the order listed.
end-user-experience-reviewer
Before executing this agent, the AI tool MUST read all of the following files to build sufficient context. Read them in the order listed.
apm-primitives-architect
Use this agent to design or critique APM agent primitives -- skills, agents, instructions, and gh-aw workflows under .apm/ and .github/. Activate when authoring new primitives, refactoring existing skill bundles, designing multi-agent orchestration, or assessing whether a primitive change adheres to PROSE and Agent…
ralph-loop-runner
Use this agent when you need to execute a Ralph orchestration loop end-to-end and verify its completion. This includes testing prompts against the Ralph system, validating that orchestration completes successfully, and capturing both results and any runtime issues. Examples:\n\n \nContext: User wants to test if a…
flutter-integration-analyzer
Use this agent for Flutter-backend integration analysis: trace protocols, data models, event flows, or cross-end consistency. Also use for LOG-DRIVEN ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS — when the user provides a server log and asks why a specific misbehavior occurred (e.g. "why did it stop responding"), this agent parses the log…
adr-critic
Lightweight ADR reviewer that checks decision rationale, alternatives fairness, consequences completeness, and clarity. Reads Author's Notes as prioritized attack vectors. Use when the ADR review operation needs a quick quality check.