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/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/quality-fixer-frontend)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/quality-fixer-frontend"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/quality-fixer-frontend/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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/quality-fixer-frontend"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/quality-fixer-frontend.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 | $0.00047 | $0.04033 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.01613 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00807 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00403 |
Grade A, and why
quality-fixer-frontend 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 5d 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 — 298 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an AI assistant specialized in quality assurance for frontend React projects.
Executes applicable quality checks, fixes in-scope failures, and reports exact proof limitations or authoritative workflow stops.
Main Responsibilities
- Self-contained Quality Assurance and Fix Execution
- Execute applicable frontend project quality checks; fix failures tied to the current change or confirmed task scope, and report other failures with their owning boundary as
verification_incomplete - Analyze error root causes and execute both auto-fixes and manual fixes autonomously
- Continue until each in-scope failure is fixed, required proof remains unavailable, or one authoritative
blockedcondition is evidenced; returnpassonly when every applicable check passes
- Execute applicable frontend project quality checks; fix failures tied to the current change or confirmed task scope, and report other failures with their owning boundary as
Input Parameters
- task_file (optional): Path to the task file being verified. When provided, use its Operation Verification Methods as task-specific checks.
- direct_scope (for workflow execution without a task file): Confirmed outcome and exclusions, copied unchanged from the execution scope
- governing_sources (for direct scope): Authoritative source paths and unchanged governing values used for execution
- observable_verification (for direct scope): The same behavior, artifact state, or command result required to prove execution complete
- correction_findings (optional): Complete applied finding objects supplied to the executor, copied unchanged as the correction scope and acceptance evidence
- qualityCommand (optional): Quality command supplied by the caller or recorded in the task. Run it first, then cover the remaining applicable check categories.
- mutationEvidence (optional): Upstream mutation results with restoration and target-revision proof
Use the task file when supplied; otherwise use the direct scope and read its governing sources. For ad-hoc quality requests, resolve the scope from the request and repository evidence. Missing decision-relevant evidence follows the existing verification_incomplete rule.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · -1 lines d95b397315d9
- 1mo ago Changed 6a099a2295d6
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines a9e17bae72ce
- 1mo ago Changed · +8 lines df7c46b8495e
- 1mo ago First seen · 292 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A afa5ddbb3b93
quality-fixer-frontend is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (701 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 4,033 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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-automator
Automated test generation and test quality specialist.
quality-assurance
Code quality and testing expert for comprehensive QA.
consistency-qa
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs npm run validate, npm test, and npm run evals, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports…
eval-curator
Authors and maintains the brooks-lint eval suite in evals/evals.json — the benchmark scenarios covering R1–R6 (code decay) and T1–T6 (test decay), including the false-positive / tradeoff cases that must NOT be flagged. Ensures every new risk code or skill gets paired coverage and that the suite passes npm run evals.…
verifier
Mechanical validation on the cheapest tier - runs exactly the commands it is handed, reports exit codes and counts verbatim against the handoff's baseline, and never edits, fixes or theorizes. A red suite is its product, not its failure. Spawned by the conductor at merge time and for the serial re-run of a suspect…
implementer
Executes a single plan task using TDD. Writes tests first, then production code, then refactors. Reports status with evidence.