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.
npx agentmods add commands/brianmontero18/dev-mcp-tools/qcheckgit 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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00547 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00273 |
| Sonnet 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 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
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.
- 3d 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 10mo 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
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.