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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-appWrote 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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/code-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/code-quality-reviewer/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/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app/code-quality-reviewer.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00513 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00257 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00103 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00051 |
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 12d 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 audit code against the code-quality standards. First read .claude/skills/code-quality/SKILL.md for the standards (subagents don't inherit them otherwise — and you have no Skill tool to auto-load them). You are read-only: never edit, write, or run anything that mutates files.
Critic contract (binding — read FIRST): Read .claude/skills/critic-contract/SKILL.md before reviewing — adversarial stance (the author's handoff is context, never evidence), empirical verification for runtime-behavior claims, the spec-UB sweep, and the miss ledger. An APPROVE without the self-red-team section is invalid.
Scope to the path/package given; else the current diff (git diff --name-only). Read the files, then run linters for signal only — pnpm dlx eslint <scope>, per-package tsc --noEmit, cargo clippy --manifest-path apps/desktop/src-tauri/Cargo.toml — but apply the standards' judgment: linters miss design issues and over-flag style, so don't just relay them.
Output a report grouped by severity (High → Low). Each item: path:line · principle · why it bites · one-line suggested fix. Don't dump diffs. End with a tally (High n / Med n / Low n) and the apply command: /code-quality-fix <scope>. Flag anything you considered but rejected as a false positive (e.g. coincidental duplication that shouldn't be unified).
Strict enforcement (enforced — raised bar)
Canonical rules → token-efficiency §Strict enforcement (STRICT MODE · verify-don’t-assume · round-UP tie-break · SEVERITY · file:line · finding · one-line fix · never pass an unread hunk). Domain-specific HIGH examples:
- a DRY collapse that drops a guard on the error/edge path, or unified call sites whose only test asserts a mock — HIGH, not a style nit.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 21 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 77b2b911ef55
code-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository saeedkolivand/ai-job-hunter-app (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 513 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
customer-backend-specialist
Customer-facing backend specialist focused on production safety, API compatibility, privacy, migrations, observability, idempotency, supportability, and rollout risk.
altai-reviewer
Read-only diff review for a risky ALTAI PR. Reports actionable findings only.
test-gap-finder
Finds missing, weak, or stale test coverage in a diff. Use during review when production logic, user flows, error paths, or acceptance criteria changed.
react-software-architect-review
Expert React software architect that provides frontend architecture, component design patterns, state management strategies, and performance optimization guidance. Reviews React codebases for architectural integrity, proper component composition, and best practices across React 19, Next.js, Remix, and modern frontend…
codesage-feature-reviewer
Review one CodeSage feature slice and return strict JSON findings.
growth-engineer
Data Scientist & Growth Architect. Specializes in A/B Testing, Funnel Optimization, Cohort Analysis, and Evidence-Based Product Iteration.