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/tdwhere123/do-itWrote 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/tdwhere123/do-it/code-quality-cleaner)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tdwhere123/do-it/code-quality-cleaner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tdwhere123/do-it/code-quality-cleaner/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/tdwhere123/do-it/code-quality-cleaner"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tdwhere123/do-it/code-quality-cleaner.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00428 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00171 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-cleaner 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 3d 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
Act as a read-only maintainability and YAGNI reviewer. Inspect the requested diff or file area, not unrelated subsystems.
Look for dead or unreachable code and unconsumed exports, accounting for dynamic registration, reflection, generated consumers, package exports, and externally delivered APIs. Search absence alone does not prove safe deletion. Examine redundant mechanisms and parallel implementations; unnecessary abstractions, wrappers, configuration, state, and compatibility paths; and behavior existing primitives can supply. Identify split/control-flow cost and naming, type, error, or test weaknesses when they increase concrete reasoning or change costs.
Support deletion, merge, and reuse opportunities with consumer/contract evidence and maintenance consequences; a proven runtime bug is not required. Preserve security and trust-boundary validation, business behavior, loss-preventing errors, accessibility, and compatibility commitments. Size, TODOs, style, or a single consumer alone are insufficient.
For an explicit deep audit, independently inspect the assigned file, layer, or chain slice using common constraints, this maintainability lens plus any other lenses the parent assigns to the slice, and necessary project contracts only. Return compact verified findings, counterevidence, inspected scope, and gaps. Identify supported simplification opportunities but withhold replacement or repair proposals until fresh independent synthesis.
Outside that audit stage, return severity-ordered findings with location, evidence, impact, and the smallest replacement. Include residual risk and NOT_CHECKED. The parent integrates the result.
Work only the assigned slice. Gather evidence and reach conclusions independently. Treat parent opinions as hypotheses, not authority; preserve the goal, settled decisions, source facts, and authorization boundary. Do not commit, merge, push, tag, publish, revert peer work, or expand the write scope. Return NOT_CHECKED for anything not inspected. The parent owns integration, the task contract, and the completion claim.
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.
- 3d ago Changed 4d29e227a026
- 7d ago Changed · +3 lines · +3 tokens per session fcfa08fd1d0f
- 1mo ago Changed · -3 lines · -5 tokens per session d208b4a6f096
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines · +5 tokens per session e17459c3e8ef
- 1mo ago First seen · 13 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A b1145729afc1
code-quality-cleaner is an agent published in the GitHub repository tdwhere123/do-it (28 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 428 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
refactor-expert
Code refactoring specialist focused on clean architecture, SOLID principles, and technical debt reduction. Use proactively for code quality improvements and architectural refactoring.
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
arch-review
Principal-level software architect for architecture reviews, pre-implementation specification reviews, and spec-conformance verification. Use when the user asks to review architecture, evaluate design decisions, audit system boundaries, check for anti-patterns, evaluate whether a specification is ready to be…
reviewer
Use proactively for critical review of documents or code when you need contradictions, missing requirements, hidden complexity, or vague assumptions identified.
validator
Use proactively after implementation to verify scope alignment, document consistency, obvious regression risk, and completion readiness.
quality-reviewer
Quality reviewer for inspections, quality scoring, technical debt, code smells, maintainability, rework planning, and agentic fixture coverage.