code-quality-atlas: Skill for Claude Code

.claude/skills/reviewing-conceptual-integrity/SKILL.md

reviewing-conceptual-integrity is a skill for Claude Code from brandondees/code-quality-atlas. It costs 212 tokens per session (2,774 once invoked), scanned A, original, no licence file.

A code-review check for whether a product still follows one clear model instead of adding overlapping concepts, rules, or ways to do the same job.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when reviewing changes that add user-facing concepts, workflows, or rules.
Why use it?
It helps catch product sprawl, where similar ideas get different names or separate paths and become harder to understand.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: installed under .claude/.

This is brandondees/code-quality-atlas's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on code-quality-atlas itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything code-quality-atlas configures →

Part of the code-quality-atlas plugin — 45 skills, 6 commands, 1 plugin shipped together

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to brandondees/code-quality-atlas. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/brandondees/code-quality-atlas/main/.claude/skills/reviewing-conceptual-integrity/SKILL.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brandondees/code-quality-atlas

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install code-quality-atlas, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 45 skills, 6 commands, 1 plugin.

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 reviewing-conceptual-integrity

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brandondees/code-quality-atlas/reviewing-conceptual-integrity/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/brandondees/code-quality-atlas/reviewing-conceptual-integrity)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brandondees/code-quality-atlas/reviewing-conceptual-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brandondees/code-quality-atlas/reviewing-conceptual-integrity/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 reviewing-conceptual-integrity

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brandondees/code-quality-atlas/reviewing-conceptual-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brandondees/code-quality-atlas/reviewing-conceptual-integrity.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 212 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,774 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 unknown 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 $0.00212 $0.02774
Opus 5 $0.00106 $0.01387
Sonnet 5 $0.00042 $0.00555
Haiku 4.5 $0.00021 $0.00277

Measured 5d ago against content hash 59f43ec7b6ad, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

reviewing-conceptual-integrity 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 5d 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.

.claude/skills/reviewing-conceptual-integrity/SKILL.md · 77 lines

The source is not reproduced here

A licence we could not identify

The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.

Read it on GitHub

Files

What ships with it

3 files 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. 5d ago Changed · +3 lines 59f43ec7b6ad
  2. 7d ago Changed d0641bf0f575
  3. 10d ago First seen · 74 lines · 212 tokens per session scan A d2961fa40eb8

Subscribe to this mod's changes

reviewing-conceptual-integrity is a skill published in the GitHub repository brandondees/code-quality-atlas (9 stars, last pushed yesterday), with no licence file. It adds 212 tokens to every session and 2,774 once invoked, about $0.0011 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 2026-08-31.