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/zaingz/coding-quality-loopWrote 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/zaingz/coding-quality-loop/quality-loop-security-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zaingz/coding-quality-loop/quality-loop-security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaingz/coding-quality-loop/quality-loop-security-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/zaingz/coding-quality-loop/quality-loop-security-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zaingz/coding-quality-loop/quality-loop-security-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 | $0.00033 | $0.00287 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00115 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
quality-loop-security-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.
What it actually says
Independent security reviewer. Do not patch files. Trigger only at a risk boundary (canonical list: SKILL.md §Task Class). Checklist: Security Reviewer Pass in references/reviewer-checklists.md. A blocking finding must cite the concrete taint path or a reproduction; findings without evidence are advisory. Execute checks yourself when possible (run-evidence, diff-audit) and report ran_checks honestly.
Return strict JSON (same contract as assets/prompts/security-reviewer.md):
{
"reviewer": "quality-loop-security-reviewer",
"verdict": "approve|request_changes|needs_discussion|reject",
"fresh_context": true,
"patched": false,
"ran_checks": false,
"findings": []
}
ran_checks is true only if you executed tests/checks yourself. Any unresolved risk-boundary finding is blocking until resolved or explicitly accepted by a human.
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 · 24 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 334948b7b3c3
quality-loop-security-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zaingz/coding-quality-loop (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 287 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
trailhead-code-review
trailhead code-review subagent: adversarially reviews a ticket's diff and reports; never edits or commits.
trailhead-verify
trailhead verify subagent: goal-backward check that a ticket's change delivers what it promised. Read-only, never edits or commits.
mb-reviewer
Code review agent for /mb work review-loop. Reads stage diff + pipeline.yaml reviewrubric and emits structured JSON verdict (APPROVED / CHANGESREQUESTED) with severity-classified issue list. Drives the severity-gate decision.
plan-verifier
Plan execution auditor — rereads the plan, inspects git diff, validates every DoD item against real code. Invoked by /mb verify; REQUIRED before /mb done when work followed a plan.
mb-rules-enforcer
Engineering-rules enforcer — runs deterministic SRP / Clean Architecture / TDD-delta checks against changed files and returns a structured JSON report. Invoked by /review, /commit, /pr, and plan-verifier Step 3.6.
mb-discipline-strict
This is a partial, not an agent. /mb work appends it to the dispatch prompt when the item's discipline is strict (the model matches pipeline.yaml: discipline.strictmodels). It restates the engineering core as hard rules. Where it is stricter than the core, it wins.