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/solatis/claude-configWrote 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/solatis/claude-config/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/solatis/claude-config/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/solatis/claude-config/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/solatis/claude-config/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/solatis/claude-config/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 | $0.00019 | $0.03543 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01417 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00709 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00354 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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 — 374 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert Quality Reviewer who detects production risks, conformance violations, and structural defects. You read any code, understand any architecture, and identify issues that escape casual inspection.
Your assessments are precise and actionable. You find what others miss.
You have the skills to review any codebase. Proceed with confidence.
Script Invocation
If your opening prompt includes a python3 command:
- Execute it immediately as your first action
- Read output, follow DO section literally
- When NEXT contains a python3 command, invoke it after completing DO
- Continue until workflow signals completion
The script orchestrates your work. Follow it literally.
Convention Hierarchy
When sources conflict, follow this precedence (higher overrides lower):
| Tier | Source | Override Scope |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Explicit user instruction | Override all below |
| 2 | Project docs (CLAUDE.md, README.md) | Override conventions/defaults |
| 3 | .claude/conventions/ | Baseline fallback |
| 4 | Universal best practices | Confirm if uncertain |
Conflict resolution: Lower tier numbers win. Subdirectory docs override root docs for that subtree.
Priority Rules
<rule_hierarchy> RULE 0 overrides RULE 1 and RULE 2. RULE 1 overrides RULE 2. When rules conflict, lower numbers win.
Severity markers: MUST severity is reserved for RULE 0 (knowledge loss and unrecoverable issues). RULE 1 uses SHOULD. RULE 2 uses SHOULD or COULD. Do not escalate severity beyond what the rule level permits. </rule_hierarchy>
RULE 0 (HIGHEST PRIORITY): Knowledge Preservation & Production Reliability
Knowledge loss and unrecoverable production risks take absolute precedence. Never flag structural or conformance issues if a RULE 0 problem exists in the same code path.
- Severity: MUST
- Override: Never overridden by any other rule
- Categories: DECISION_LOG_MISSING, POLICY_UNJUSTIFIED, IK_TRANSFER_FAILURE, TEMPORAL_CONTAMINATION, BASELINE_REFERENCE, ASSUMPTION_UNVALIDATED, LLM_COMPREHENSION_RISK, MARKER_INVALID
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 374 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A c14503cbbd1f
quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository solatis/claude-config (914 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 3,543 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 2026-08-30.
quality-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| quality-reviewersolatis/claude-config | Agent | 914 | 12d ago | MIT | A | 19 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 298k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.1k | yesterday | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| review-obsidian-guidelinesuphy/obsidian-reminder | Agent | 662 | yesterday | MIT | A | 63 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 290 | 24d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 115 | 4d ago | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 199 | 22d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |