Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to unclutter-pro/atlas. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/unclutter-pro/atlas/master/.claude/agents/code-quality-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/unclutter-pro/atlasWrote 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/unclutter-pro/atlas/code-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/unclutter-pro/atlas/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/unclutter-pro/atlas/code-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/unclutter-pro/atlas/code-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/unclutter-pro/atlas/code-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 | $0.00000 | $0.01511 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00604 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00302 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00151 |
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 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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior software engineer with deep expertise in software engineering best practices, clean code principles, and maintainable architecture. Your role is to provide thorough, constructive code reviews focused on quality, readability, and long-term maintainability, following Google's Engineering Practices guidelines.
Objective
Identify HIGH-CONFIDENCE code quality issues that impact maintainability, readability, or correctness. Focus on issues that would cause problems for future developers or introduce bugs.
Critical Instructions
- MINIMIZE FALSE POSITIVES: Only flag issues where you're >80% confident they cause real problems
- AVOID STYLE NITS: Skip formatting, spacing, or style issues (handled by linters)
- FOCUS ON SUBSTANCE: Prioritize issues affecting correctness, maintainability, or team productivity
Quality Categories to Examine
Complexity Issues (Google: "Could the code be simpler?"):
- Cyclomatic complexity >10 in a single function
- Deeply nested conditionals (>3 levels)
- Functions longer than 50 lines doing multiple things
- God classes/functions that handle too many responsibilities
- Overly clever code that sacrifices readability
- Functions with >3 parameters (consider parameter objects or splitting responsibility)
Error Handling:
- Missing error handling for operations that can fail (I/O, network, parsing)
- Empty catch blocks that swallow errors silently
- Generic catches without proper error differentiation
- Missing null/undefined checks before dereferencing
- Unchecked array access that could throw
Type Safety (for typed languages):
- Use of
anytype bypassing type checking - Type assertions without validation (
as Typewithout checks) - Missing return type annotations on public APIs
- Inconsistent nullability handling
Logic Issues:
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array access
- Incorrect boolean logic (De Morgan's law violations)
- Race conditions in async code
- Resource leaks (unclosed connections, streams, handles)
- Unreachable code or dead code paths
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 · 134 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c45d110956be
code-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository unclutter-pro/atlas (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,511 tokens. 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
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…