Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to berntpopp/metadome-link. 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/metadome-link/main/.claude/skills/code-quality-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/berntpopp/metadome-linkWrote 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/metadome-link/code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/berntpopp/metadome-link/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/berntpopp/metadome-link/code-quality-review.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 | $0.00037 | $0.00411 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00205 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-quality-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 31 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 87ff1dc83d9e
code-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository berntpopp/metadome-link (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 411 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-quality-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
tool-defs-analysis
Read-only audit of MCP definition language across an existing surface — tools, resources, prompts, server instructions. Walks every definition file and checks 16 categories the LLM reads to decide whether and how to call: voice & tense, internal leaks, audience leaks, defaults, recovery hints, field descriptions…
code-simplifier
Post-session code review and cleanup against a working tree of changes. Analyzes git diff to simplify, consolidate, and align changed code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, remove unnecessary complexity, consolidate duplicated logic, catch efficiency issues. Use after a substantive working session, or…
code-simplifier
Post-session code review and cleanup against a working tree of changes. Analyzes git diff to simplify, consolidate, and align changed code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, remove unnecessary complexity, consolidate duplicated logic, catch efficiency issues. Use after a substantive working session, or…
code-simplifier
Post-session code review and cleanup against a working tree of changes. Analyzes git diff to simplify, consolidate, and align changed code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, remove unnecessary complexity, consolidate duplicated logic, catch efficiency issues. Use after a substantive working session, or…
security-review
Perform a focused security review of pending git changes to identify high-confidence security vulnerabilities with real exploitation potential. Use this skill when the user asks for a security review, security audit, vulnerability scan, or wants to check pending changes on a branch for security issues before merging.…
huggingface-llm-trainer
Train or fine-tune language models with TRL or Unsloth on Hugging Face Jobs, including SFT, DPO, GRPO, reward models, and GGUF conversion. Use for cloud LLM training; use huggingface-vision-trainer for vision tasks.