running-quality-checks

running-quality-checks is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from bostonaholic/team. It costs 28 tokens per session (940 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A mechanical procedure for finding and running the quality checks configured in a software project, such as formatting, linting, type checking, builds, and tests.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it before completion to detect available checks, run them from fastest to slowest, and record commands, results, and errors.
Why use it?
It produces an evidence-based pass or fail result instead of relying on opinion about whether the project is ready.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for Claude Code and Codex: user-invocable in frontmatter, but also agents/openai.yaml present.

Part of the team plugin — 92 skills, 13 agents, 2 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it before completion to detect available checks, run them from fastest to slowest, and record commands, results, and errors.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/bostonaholic/team/running-quality-checks
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add bostonaholic/team --skill running-quality-checks
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bostonaholic/team

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Or install team, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 92 skills, 13 agents, 2 hooks.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for running-quality-checks

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/running-quality-checks/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/team/running-quality-checks)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/team/running-quality-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/running-quality-checks/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for running-quality-checks

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/team/running-quality-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/team/running-quality-checks.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 28 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 940 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00028 $0.00940
Opus 5 $0.00014 $0.00470
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00188
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00094

Measured 2d ago against content hash e3d738984bdf, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

running-quality-checks 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 2d 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.

skills/running-quality-checks/SKILL.md · 79 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Running Quality Checks

The verifier's procedure: detect the checks the project configures, run them in speed order, and report evidence. No opinions — just evidence.

Process

  1. Detect available checks. Inspect project configuration to find runnable checks:

    • package.json scripts (format, lint, typecheck, build, test)
    • Makefile targets
    • CI configuration (.github/workflows/, .circleci/, etc.)
    • Tool configuration files (.eslintrc, tsconfig.json, prettier.config, biome.json, etc.)
  2. Run checks in speed order. Execute each detected check, fastest first:

    1. Format — Prettier, Biome format, or equivalent (--check mode)
    2. Lint — ESLint, Biome lint, Clippy, or equivalent
    3. Type check — TypeScript tsc --noEmit, mypy, or equivalent
    4. Build — Production build command
    5. Test — Test suite execution

    Checks interfere. A production build and a dev-server-backed browser suite share one build directory in most frameworks that have one, so back-to-back in a single sequence the second reads state the first wrote and fails on assertions that read exactly like regressions. Clear the build directory and run the browser suite alone. A suite that boots its own servers is unsafe beside anything else, another agent's dev server included.

  3. Capture results. For each check, record:

    • The exact command run
    • The exit code
    • For failures: the relevant error output (trimmed to essential lines)
    • For passes: one-line confirmation

Verdict Logic

  • PASS — All detected checks passed (at least one check must exist).
  • FAIL — One or more detected checks failed. List every failure.
  • FAIL — No checks detected at all. A project with zero configured quality checks (no linter, no type checker, no test suite, no build) cannot pass verification. Report what is missing and recommend configuring at least format, lint, and test scripts.

Rules

  • Run every check you can detect. A check the project does not configure is not a detected check.
  • Do NOT fix failures. Report them exactly as they occur.
  • Do NOT interpret results beyond pass/fail. No suggestions, no opinions.
  • Keep output concise. For failures, include only the lines needed to understand what went wrong. Do not dump entire build logs.
  • If a check hangs for more than 120 seconds, kill it and report TIMEOUT.
  • Do NOT retry to mask intermittent failures. Each check runs once. If a test or check fails, report it. If you happen to know the same test passed in a previous run (e.g., the orchestrator re-dispatched after a code fix), note the intermittency in the report (### Notes — Intermittent: testFoo passed on retry, the underlying race condition is unresolved). Reruns that turn red → green without a code change are evidence of a flake or a real intermittent bug, not a verdict of PASS.
  • A baseline is comparable only under the same isolation. When this run is the before side of a before/after comparison (principle-pre-image-first), run both sides the same way. A false red recorded as the pre-change state reclassifies a later regression as pre-existing — a failure in the safe direction, which is why it goes unnoticed.
  • Coverage is reported, not gated. If the project has a coverage tool configured, run it and report the coverage delta for changed files (e.g., "coverage on changed files: 73% → 78%"). Do NOT gate on an absolute coverage threshold. Coverage tells you what is NOT tested. It does not tell you what IS tested is good. Pair with mutation testing when available. Require coverage to trend upward rather than mandating a fixed threshold.

Read the full file on GitHub · 79 lines

Files

What ships with it

1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago Changed · +12 lines e3d738984bdf
  2. 4d ago Changed · -22 tokens per session e333881206ce
  3. 6d ago Changed b4e5c8d23ea2
  4. 10d ago First seen · 67 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A e613d9626077

Subscribe to this mod's changes

running-quality-checks is a skill published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/team (11 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 940 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 2026-08-30.