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/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-toolingWrote 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/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/quality-review/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/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling/quality-review.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00263 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00105 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00053 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00026 |
Grade A, and why
quality-review 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 6d 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
/quality-review
Invoke the quality-review skill against a target. Spawns the three review agents in parallel and synthesizes findings.
Usage
/quality-review <target>
Where <target> is one of:
- A file path (
docs/PRD.md,src/api/auth.ts) - A description of an in-progress proposal in chat
- A pasted block of plan / design text
What happens
- Load the
quality-reviewskill - Spawn
simplifier,adversarial-reviewer,chaos-engineerin parallel against the target - Synthesize findings (where do they agree, where do they disagree)
- Present a numbered, prioritized report
- Wait for user decision
Do NOT auto-apply fixes. The skill produces recommendations; the user decides what lands.
When to skip
- Trivial changes (single-file edits, typos, config tweaks)
- Information requests (this command is for proposals, not questions)
- Already-implemented code where the design is locked — use a code-review pass instead
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +1 lines 5bf1bcdf356e
- 1mo ago First seen · 35 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 4a072ec74a3e
quality-review is a command published in the GitHub repository shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling (6 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 263 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 commands, from other repositories
bug-blitz
Submit a bug-blitz as one coordinator:bug-blitz Workflow call.
forensics
Post-mortem investigation for failed or stuck workflows. Analyzes git history and planning artifacts.
audit-fix
Run audit, prioritize findings, auto-fix via quick tasks, test, and commit.
audit
Review past Claude Code sessions for PBR workflow compliance and UX quality.
debug
Systematic debugging with hypothesis testing. Persistent across sessions.
scan
Analyze an existing codebase. Maps structure, architecture, conventions, and concerns.