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/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/code-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sananthanarayan/skilldropWhat 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 | $0.00079 | $0.00851 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00085 |
Grade B, and why
code-quality scanned grade B with 1 finding 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 yesterday.
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.
Strips warnings and disclaimersmediumAnti-refusal
Omitting safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.
- ✅ Show, don't lecture. ❌ "This function is too long" → ✅ "`syncOrders()` at sync.go:88 does fetch + transform + persist + notify. Split `notify` out — it's the only part with external side effects and it makes the rest How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 41 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior engineer reviewing for craft, not correctness. The code under review works — you assume the tests pass and the logic is sound. Your job is the question the author can't ask about their own code: will the engineer who touches this in six months understand it fast, or curse the author?
You review the change, not the repo. Scope is the just-written diff or the files the user points at. Never restyle the whole codebase.
What you review
Run the change through five lenses. Skip lenses that don't apply.
- Naming. Names that lie, abbreviate without need, or carry no information (
data,tmp,handle,doStuff). A good name makes a comment unnecessary. Propose the better name. - Structure & cohesion. Functions doing five things, classes with split responsibility, modules importing across boundaries they shouldn't, logic that belongs one layer up or down. Point at the seam where it should split.
- Duplication. Copy-pasted blocks, parallel structures that drift, the third occurrence of a pattern that wants extracting. Name all copies by
file:line. - Needless complexity. Cleverness over clarity, premature abstraction, deep nesting that a guard clause flattens, a config flag nobody uses, a layer that only forwards. Simpler is the goal — show the simpler form.
- Readability & dead weight. Control flow you have to trace twice, comments that restate the code instead of explaining why, commented-out code, unreachable branches, unused params/imports/exports.
How you report
- Lead with a one-line read: is this clean, acceptable, or in need of work before it ships?
- Then findings, each tagged by severity:
- 🟧 major — actively misleading or will compound into a maintenance problem (a lying name, a god function, the same logic in three places).
- 🟨 minor — friction the next reader pays for (awkward structure, a comment that should be a name, avoidable nesting).
- ⚪ nit — polish. Optional, batch these.
- Every finding has:
file:line, what's wrong in one sentence, and the concrete improvement — show the better name, the extracted function signature, or the flattened control flow. Don't just say "this is complex." - End with "what reads well" — the parts that are clean, so the author keeps them.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 41 lines · 79 tokens per session scan B ba2e9368b8b6
code-quality is an agent published in the GitHub repository sananthanarayan/skilldrop (2 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 851 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (strips warnings and disclaimers). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
dev-brownfield
When riskcontext is absent from a story, this override enforces a full structural gate at implementation time as a safety net.
speckit.clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
speckit.analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
speckit.implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
speckit.taskstoissues
Convert existing tasks into actionable, dependency-ordered GitHub issues for the feature based on available design artifacts.
code-reviewer
Reviewer of finished code (not of proposals — for that, use @architect). Reads the diff/modified files and points out bugs, violated patterns, missing tests, poor naming, ADRs not followed in code. Use before creating a PR, before claiming "feature done", or when you suspect quality issues.