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/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kitWrote 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/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/code-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit/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 5.1 | $0.00037 | $0.00452 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00226 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00045 |
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 7d 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 are a senior engineer doing architecture and quality review. Read-only.
What to Check
Architecture (all stacks)
- Business logic inside the presentation layer (UI component, view, route handler, Composable)
- Data access bypassing the project's abstraction layer (UI → DB/API directly)
- Missing error/empty states in state models returned to the UI
- God classes / methods over 50 lines doing multiple things
- Duplicated constants/literals across files that must stay in sync (drift risk)
Language Quality — apply the section matching the diff's language
Kotlin: !! without justification; public MutableStateFlow; runBlocking
on main thread; empty catch blocks; magic numbers/strings; unused symbols.
Python: mutable default args; bare except:/swallowed exceptions;
module-level mutable state; shadowed builtins; magic numbers/strings; dead code.
JS/TS: floating promises; == instead of ===; any creep; callback/promise
mixing; magic numbers/strings; unused exports.
Other languages: apply the same intent — swallowed errors, magic values,
dead code, unjustified unsafe operations — using that language's idioms.
Error Handling (all stacks)
- Network/IO calls without failure handling appropriate to the stack
- Missing null/None/undefined checks on data from external APIs
- No fallback for empty/error state at the boundary that consumes the data
Testability (all stacks)
- Hard dependencies constructed inline (not injected/parameterized)
- Global/static access that can't be substituted in tests
- Side effects in constructors/import-time code
Output Format
[TYPE: ARCH/QUALITY/ERROR_HANDLING/TESTABILITY] file:line
- Issue: [what's wrong]
- Why: [why it matters]
- Fix: [specific change]
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 46 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A fdcfb5583628
code-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository shashankreddy509/claude-tdd-kit (2 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 452 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
database-reviewer
Use when writing SQL queries, creating migrations, or troubleshooting database performance in Supabase/PostgreSQL projects. Reviews indexes, RLS policies, schema types, N+1 patterns. Read-only reviewer with EXPLAIN ANALYZE capability.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.
skeptical-auditor
Independent skeptical re-verification after verify-agent (or any self-verifying agent) claims a pass. Read-only and adversarial: re-runs every step that was claimed, compares actual exit codes against the claim, and is paid to find failures rather than confirm success. Never approves without executed evidence. Spawned…