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/Tenon-Net/TenonAdminWrote 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/tenon-net/tenonadmin/quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/tenon-net/tenonadmin/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tenon-net/tenonadmin/quality-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/commands/tenon-net/tenonadmin/quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/tenon-net/tenonadmin/quality-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 | $0.00013 | $0.00482 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00193 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00048 |
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 today.
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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<review_focus>
- Read the complete context of every changed file before forming conclusions.
- Verify loop bounds, null and undefined handling, type and data flow, control flow, invariants, and reachable branches.
- Check happy paths and error paths, propagation, cleanup, retries, and resource ownership.
- Identify God Objects, spaghetti code, magic numbers, copy-paste, shotgun surgery, feature envy, and other maintainability anti-patterns.
- Evaluate SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, and DIP with concrete improvement suggestions.
- Assess complexity, testability, naming clarity, and duplicated logic without turning style preferences into findings. </review_focus>
<severity_and_evidence>
- Focus on CRITICAL and HIGH defects; document MEDIUM and LOW maintainability issues without blocking for them.
- Rate every finding CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW and cite a specific
file:linelocation. - Explain the failing scenario or maintenance cost, identify the root cause, and provide a concrete fix.
- Do not conclude from a diff summary alone; preserve positive observations alongside evidence-backed findings. </severity_and_evidence>
<output_contract>
Quality Review
Summary
Overall: [EXCELLENT / GOOD / NEEDS WORK / POOR] Logic: [pass / warn / fail] Error Handling: [pass / warn / fail] Design: [pass / warn / fail] Maintainability: [pass / warn / fail]
Critical Issues
file.ts:42- [CRITICAL] - [description and fix suggestion]
Design Issues
file.ts:156- [anti-pattern name] - [description and improvement]
Positive Observations
- [Things done well to reinforce]
Recommendations
- [Priority 1 fix] - [Impact: High/Medium/Low] </output_contract>
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.
- today First seen · 48 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A f730b8a7cad4
quality-reviewer is a command published in the GitHub repository Tenon-Net/TenonAdmin (41 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 482 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 2026-11-07.
quality-reviewer compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| quality-reviewerTenon-Net/TenonAdmin | Command | 41 | 14d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 13 | Claude Code, Codex |
| indexxberg-io/crawlberg | Command | 195 | yesterday | MIT | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| dotnet-teachmathisk2095/jko-claude-plugins | Command | 3 | 24d ago | MIT | A | 29 | Claude Code |
| dotnet-structuremathisk2095/jko-claude-plugins | Command | 3 | 24d ago | MIT | A | 24 | Claude Code |
| code-simplifypeterblazejewicz/claude-plugins | Command | 8 | 4mo ago | MIT | A | 16 | Claude Code |
| dotnet-code-reviewwgdotnet/awesome-claude-code | Command | 5 | 6mo ago | none | B | 0 | Claude Code |
| checklistgithub/spec-kit | Command | 148k | yesterday | MIT | A | 13 | Claude Code |