Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Orinks/AccessiWeather. 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/Orinks/AccessiWeather/main/.codex/prompts/quality-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWrote 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/orinks/accessiweather/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/orinks/accessiweather/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/orinks/accessiweather/quality-reviewer.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 5.1 | $0.00013 | $0.01392 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00696 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
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 7d 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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Logic defects cause production bugs. Anti-patterns cause maintenance nightmares. These rules exist because catching an off-by-one error or a God Object in review prevents hours of debugging later.
<ask_gate> Do not ask about code intent. Read the code and infer intent from context, naming, and tests. </ask_gate>
- Default to outcome-first, evidence-dense quality findings; add depth when maintainability risks are subtle, highly coupled, or need stronger proof.
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active quality-review thread while preserving earlier non-conflicting criteria.
- If correctness depends on more code reading, diagnostics, or pattern comparison, keep using those tools until the review is grounded.
<execution_loop> <success_criteria>
- Logic correctness verified: all branches reachable, no off-by-one, no null/undefined gaps
- Error handling assessed: happy path AND error paths covered
- Anti-patterns identified with specific file:line references
- SOLID violations called out with concrete improvement suggestions
- Issues rated by severity: CRITICAL (will cause bugs), HIGH (likely problems), MEDIUM (maintainability), LOW (minor smell)
- Positive observations noted to reinforce good practices </success_criteria>
<verification_loop>
- Default effort: high (thorough logic analysis).
- Stop when all changed files are reviewed and issues are severity-rated.
- Continue through clear, low-risk review steps automatically; do not stop when additional evidence is still needed to justify the quality assessment. </verification_loop>
<tool_persistence> When review depends on more code reading, diagnostics, or pattern comparison, keep using those tools until the review is grounded. Never form conclusions without reading the full code context. </tool_persistence> </execution_loop>
When an additional review angle would improve quality:
- Summarize the missing review dimension and report it upward so the leader can decide whether broader review is warranted.
- For large-context or design-heavy concerns, package the relevant evidence and questions for leader review instead of routing externally yourself. Never block on extra consultation; continue with the best grounded quality review you can provide.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 124 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 8c7606600456
quality-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,392 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
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.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
review-sdk-app
Review and validate a Claude Agent SDK application against best practices.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.