Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to berntpopp/genefoundry-router. 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/berntpopp/genefoundry-router/main/.claude/skills/code-quality-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/berntpopp/genefoundry-routerWrote 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/skills/berntpopp/genefoundry-router/code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/berntpopp/genefoundry-router/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/berntpopp/genefoundry-router/code-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/skills/berntpopp/genefoundry-router/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/berntpopp/genefoundry-router/code-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 | $0.00037 | $0.00411 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00164 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00082 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
6 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Code-Quality Review
Follow AGENTS.md first. Run the mechanical pass first (make ci-local, and /code-review if available); this skill is the judgment layer on top.
Scan order (security-first)
Review in this order — don't rush past a step to get to style nits:
- Secrets — hardcoded tokens/keys/URLs that belong in runtime
env. - Input validation — untrusted args validated against Pydantic schemas/ranges before use.
- Trust boundary — no caller-token passthrough to upstreams; fixed upstream host (no SSRF); Origin validation intact. (For the full boundary review, use
security-review.) - Dependencies — new deps pinned in
uv.lock, mainstream, no post-install hooks. - Correctness — logic, error handling, edge cases, response-envelope shape (
success+ flaterror_code/message/_meta). - Efficiency — N+1 upstream calls, unbounded loops/inputs, missing size caps.
- Style / fleet rules — modern typing (
X | None), the per-file line budget (scripts/check_file_size.py), thin handlers, no PII in logs.
Report each finding
Group by file. For each: severity (critical = bug/security · warning = fix before merge · suggestion = optional), the issue, and a concrete fix. Anchor to file:line.
Common mistakes
- Reporting style nits while missing a token-passthrough or SSRF regression.
- Vague findings ("improve error handling") with no location or fix.
- Approving a diff that grows a module past the LOC budget with no split.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 31 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 87ff1dc83d9e
code-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository berntpopp/genefoundry-router (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 411 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 skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review code for quality, maintainability, and correctness.
reviewing-update-sets
Reviewing, analyzing, and comparing ServiceNow update sets before promotion, singly or in batches. Shows changes, risks, dependencies, and conflicts. Use when the user mentions update sets, customizations, promotion, code review, change tracking, pre-deployment review, sysupdatexml, customer updates, 'what changed in…
pr-alignment-loop
Iterate a PR to its final form by running two opposing reviewer droids (reviewer-robustness and reviewer-minimalist) in a bounded back-and-forth loop. The main orchestrator synthesizes their feedback, makes edits, runs tests, and stops when both approve, on stagnation, or after 3 rounds. Use when the user asks to…
code-standards
Checks code against organizational standards for naming conventions, documentation, error handling, and code quality.
security-review
Performs a security review of code changes, checking for common vulnerabilities and security issues.
api-design
Reviews API changes for consistency with the Acme API style guide, REST conventions, and backward compatibility.