Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools. 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/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools/main/.claude/commands/qcheck.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-toolsWrote 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/commands/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools/qcheck)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools/qcheck"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools/qcheck/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/commands/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools/qcheck"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools/qcheck.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 | $0.00547 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00219 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
qcheck 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.
What it actually says
QCHECK - Comprehensive Code Review
When user types "qcheck", execute this workflow as a SKEPTICAL senior software engineer:
1. Major Changes Analysis
For every MAJOR code change (skip minor changes):
A. Writing Functions Best Practices (CLAUDE.md)
- ✅ Can you read the function and easily follow what it's doing?
- ✅ Does the function have acceptable cyclomatic complexity?
- ✅ Are optimal data structures/algorithms used?
- ✅ Are there any unused parameters?
- ✅ Are unnecessary type casts avoided?
- ✅ Is the function easily testable without heavy mocking?
- ✅ Are hidden dependencies minimized?
- ✅ Is the function name the best among alternatives?
B. Writing Tests Best Practices (CLAUDE.md)
- ✅ Are inputs parameterized (no magic literals)?
- ✅ Can tests fail for real defects (not trivial)?
- ✅ Do test descriptions match assertions?
- ✅ Are expectations independent of implementation?
- ✅ Do tests follow prod code standards?
- ✅ Are invariants/properties tested when possible?
- ✅ Are tests grouped by function name?
- ✅ Are strong assertions used over weak ones?
- ✅ Are edge cases covered?
- ✅ Type checker catches relevant conditions?
C. Implementation Best Practices (CLAUDE.md)
- ✅ Were clarifying questions asked?
- ✅ Was approach drafted for complex work?
- ✅ Were pros/cons listed for multiple approaches?
Response Template
🔍 **QCHECK - Senior Engineer Review**
**Major Changes Reviewed:**
- [List major functions/components reviewed]
**Function Quality Analysis:**
[For each major function]
- **Function**: `functionName`
- ✅/❌ Readability: [assessment]
- ✅/❌ Complexity: [cyclomatic complexity check]
- ✅/❌ Testability: [mocking requirements]
- ✅/❌ Naming: [compared to alternatives]
**Test Quality Analysis:**
[For each major test]
- **Test**: `testName`
- ✅/❌ No magic literals
- ✅/❌ Can fail for real defects
- ✅/❌ Description matches assertion
- ✅/❌ Edge cases covered
**Implementation Process:**
- ✅/❌ Clarifying questions asked
- ✅/❌ Approach properly planned
- ✅/❌ Alternatives considered
**Concerns/Recommendations:**
[List any issues found with specific suggestions]
**Overall Assessment:** ✅ Ready to ship / ⚠️ Needs revision / ❌ Major issues
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 · 67 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 1c578e1af217
qcheck is a command published in the GitHub repository brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools (0 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 547 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 2026-09-01.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
spec-trace-requirements
You are verifying that implementation changes trace back to specification requirements.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).