Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kitnpx agentmods add skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/sonarqube-checkWrote 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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/sonarqube-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/sonarqube-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/sonarqube-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/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/sonarqube-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/sonarqube-check.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 10 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 39 Docker image references without a specific tag (:latest is implicit) or digest (@sha256:...) can be silently replaced by a malicious image.Fix: Pin the image: image:tag or image@sha256:abc123
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 | $0.00064 | $0.02588 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01294 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00518 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00259 |
Grade A, and why
sonarqube-check scanned grade A with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -sfu "$T:" "$S/api/qualitygates/project_status?projectKey=$K" # pass / fail, and which condition failed How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SonarQube quality gate — produce the real report, locally
Trigger phrases: "sonarqube", "quality gate", "code smell", "sonar scan", "sonar rapor", "A rating"
Only a SonarQube analysis can say "rating A, 0 findings". A clean build says the compiler was happy — a
different claim, about a different rule set. Passing one off as the other is how a team is told the code is clean
and then opens a report full of findings.
You do not need a company server or someone else's token to get the real thing: SonarQube Community Build is free, needs no licence key, and runs in one Docker container on this machine. That is the default path here — the gate is produced locally, offline, and it is a genuine SonarQube verdict, not a proxy for one.
Language-agnostic on purpose: SonarQube covers 20+ languages plus IaC (Terraform, Kubernetes, Dockerfile). Detect what the project actually uses; never assume a stack.
Step 1 — get a real analysis (pick the first that applies)
a) The project already has a SonarQube → use it, and skip to step 2.
b) It does not → stand one up locally. No licence, no external account, nothing leaves the machine. Two ways, and Docker is not required.
Nothing here is installed without the user saying so. Docker, Java, a scanner, a linter — each is a proposal with its cost stated, and the user picks. If they decline all of them, that is a valid answer: go to (c) and report "unverified" rather than installing anything to make a number appear.
# b1 — with Docker (one command)
docker run -d --name sonarqube -p 9000:9000 sonarqube:community # first boot ~1-2 min
# b2 — WITHOUT Docker: the plain server zip. Needs Java 17 or 21 on PATH (`java -version`), nothing else.
# download SonarQube Community Build, unzip (e.g. C:\sonarqube), then start it:
# Windows C:\sonarqube\bin\windows-x86-64\StartSonar.bat
# Linux/macOS ./bin/<platform>/sonar.sh console
# It runs on an embedded H2 database — no database to install for local use.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 151 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 07af97659d88
sonarqube-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 2,588 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
caveman-review
Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…