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/yeaight7/agent-powerupsWrote 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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/quality-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/yeaight7/agent-powerups/quality-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yeaight7/agent-powerups/quality-check/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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/quality-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/yeaight7/agent-powerups/quality-check.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00527 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00264 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
quality-check 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
Quality Gate Orchestrator
CRITICAL BEHAVIORAL RULES
You MUST follow these rules exactly. Violating any of them is a failure.
- Execute checks sequentially. Do NOT skip checks unless explicitly instructed.
- Halt on failure. If any check fails and cannot be automatically fixed, STOP immediately. Present the error.
- Use local tools. Rely on the project's configured tools (e.g., npm run lint, cargo test, etc.).
- Never enter plan mode autonomously. Execute the quality gate directly.
Pre-flight Checks
Identify the project type and available quality scripts (e.g., in package.json, Makefile, etc.).
Determine if --strict (fail on warnings) or --fix (attempt auto-fix) flags are present in $ARGUMENTS.
Phase 1: Code Formatting and Linting
- Run the project's formatting check (e.g., Prettier, rustfmt).
- If
--fixis passed, run the format-fix command instead.
- If
- Run the project's linting tool (e.g., ESLint, Clippy).
- Capture warnings and errors.
- If
--strictis active, warnings count as failures.
Phase 2: Automated Testing
- Run the unit test suite.
- Verify that all tests pass.
- Check code coverage metrics if configured. Ensure they meet the project's baseline.
Phase 3: Static Analysis and Build
- Run type checking (e.g., tsc --noEmit) if applicable.
- Run a trial build to ensure compilation succeeds without errors.
Phase 4: Reporting
Generate a final quality gate report:
# Quality Gate Results
## Summary
- **Status**: [PASS | FAIL]
- **Linting**: [X errors, Y warnings]
- **Testing**: [X passed, Y failed]
- **Type Check / Build**: [PASS | FAIL]
## Details
[List specific failures or areas of concern]
## Next Steps
[Provide exact commands or recommendations to resolve any failures]
Validation Checklists
- Linting passes completely.
- Formatting aligns with standard rules.
- All tests execute and pass.
- Build completes without compilation errors.
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 · 21 tokens per session scan A 0cc3e1f015d2
quality-check is a command published in the GitHub repository yeaight7/agent-powerups (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 527 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 2026-09-14.
Other commands, from other repositories
ship
Mechanical pre-deploy gate — tests, build, tree state.
test-feature
Test a React Native feature on the running simulator/emulator. Verifies UI, user flows, and internal state. Generates a persistent Maestro test file.
optimize-workflow
Analyze and optimize GitHub Actions workflow for performance, cost, and best practices.
check-go
Run Go code quality checks including formatting, linting, vetting, and tests.
run-workflow
Validate and establish the proven rn-dev-agent operating sequence before a real React Native journey — declared package manager and dependencies, read-only inventory, typed session recovery, one exclusive device, managed integration and Metro, only the requested proof, reverse-order cleanup.
check-pipeline
Analyze CI/CD pipeline configuration for optimization opportunities.