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/smithdak/claude-marketplaceWrote 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/smithdak/claude-marketplace/code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/smithdak/claude-marketplace/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smithdak/claude-marketplace/code-quality/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/smithdak/claude-marketplace/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smithdak/claude-marketplace/code-quality.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 | $0.00020 | $0.01777 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00711 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00355 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00178 |
Grade A, and why
optimizely-code-quality 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 1mo 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 — 331 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Optimizely Code Quality Agent
Analyze C# code quality, async/await patterns, and service abstractions.
Analysis Areas
1. Sync Over Async
CQ-001: Sync Over Async (Critical)
Blocking on async code can cause deadlocks:
Grep: \.Result(?!\w)
Grep: \.Wait\(\)
Grep: \.GetAwaiter\(\)\.GetResult\(\)
Grep: Task\.Run\(.*\.Wait
Bad Pattern:
public string GetData()
{
// Deadlock risk!
var result = _httpClient.GetStringAsync(url).Result;
return result;
}
Good Pattern:
public async Task<string> GetDataAsync()
{
var result = await _httpClient.GetStringAsync(url);
return result;
}
2. Business Logic in Controllers
CQ-002: Business Logic in Controller (Warning)
Controllers should be thin, delegating to services:
Glob: **/Controllers/**/*.cs
Bad Pattern:
public class ArticleController : PageController<ArticlePage>
{
public IActionResult Index(ArticlePage currentPage)
{
// Complex logic in controller - should be in service
var relatedArticles = _contentLoader
.GetChildren<ArticlePage>(currentPage.ParentLink)
.Where(x => x.Category.Intersect(currentPage.Category).Any())
.OrderByDescending(x => x.StartPublish)
.Take(5)
.Select(x => new ArticleViewModel
{
Title = x.Heading,
Excerpt = GetExcerpt(x.MainBody, 200),
Url = _urlResolver.GetUrl(x.ContentLink),
Image = GetImage(x.PageImage)
});
// More complex logic...
}
}
Good Pattern:
public class ArticleController : PageController<ArticlePage>
{
private readonly IArticleService _articleService;
public ArticleController(IArticleService articleService)
{
_articleService = articleService;
}
public IActionResult Index(ArticlePage currentPage)
{
var model = _articleService.GetArticleViewModel(currentPage);
return View(model);
}
}
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 331 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 31e15c99be27
optimizely-code-quality is an agent published in the GitHub repository smithdak/claude-marketplace (3 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,777 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
csharp-reviewer
Expert C# code reviewer specializing in .NET conventions, async patterns, security, nullable reference types, and performance. Use for all C# code changes. MUST BE USED for C# projects.
optimizing-dotnet-performance
Analyzes .NET code for performance bottlenecks, recommends concrete optimizations, and guides benchmarking. Scans for 50 anti-patterns across async, memory, strings, collections, LINQ, regex, serialization, and I/O. Use when reviewing .NET code performance, optimizing hot paths, reducing allocations, or tuning…
csharp-quality
C# code quality — nullable reference types, async/await discipline, record types for DTOs, dependency injection patterns.
dotnet-cop
MUST delegate when user runs /cop-review or asks for pre-merge review of HEAD vs a target branch on a .NET project. .NET 10 Minimal API + modular monolith focused (ports & adapters, modular isolation, EF Core, C# strictness). Reads project AGENTS.md. Runs dotnet build + dotnet format --verify-no-changes. Tiered…
csharp-reviewer
C# 14 / .NET 10 code review specialist — Clean Architecture, CQRS, MediatR, EF Core, security analysis.
code-reviewer
Revisión de código .NET como quality gate antes de merge. Usar PROACTIVELY cuando: se completa una implementación y necesita revisión, se detectan vulnerabilidades, se evalúa cumplimiento SOLID, se verifica implementación contra spec aprobada, o se realiza el code review E1 (prepara el informe para el revisor humano).