Claude With Skills is a progressive course that teaches developers to create reusable, portable Agent Skills for Claude Code, from basic SKILL.md files to advanced automation and plugin packaging. It is intended for developers who want repeatable instructions and workflows instead of repeatedly pasting the same guidance. The catalogue contains the course's skills, agents, and instruction.
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.
npx skills add davila7/claude-with-skills --skill code-quality-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davila7/claude-with-skillsWrote 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/davila7/claude-with-skills/code-quality-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/davila7/claude-with-skills/code-quality-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davila7/claude-with-skills/code-quality-gate/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/davila7/claude-with-skills/code-quality-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davila7/claude-with-skills/code-quality-gate.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 | $0.00052 | $0.00461 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-gate 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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
Run the complete code quality gate for this PR.
Pre-flight
Check whether an open PR exists:
!gh pr view --json number,title,headRefName 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_PR"
If the output above contains "NO_PR", note that no PR is open. Proceed with the scans anyway, but print the final report to the terminal instead of posting it as a comment.
Steps
-
Run
/security-scan. It will return findings in this format:SECURITY FINDINGS: - [severity] file:line — descriptionCapture the full output.
-
Run
/complexity-check. It will return findings in this format:COMPLEXITY FINDINGS: - file:line — descriptionCapture the full output.
-
Run
/test-coverage-check. It will return findings in this format:COVERAGE FINDINGS: - source-file — descriptionCapture the full output.
-
Collect all three findings blocks.
-
If a PR is open, invoke
@quality-reporterwith this message: "Post a code quality report for this PR with the following findings. Format as a GitHub PR comment and post it.[paste the SECURITY FINDINGS block here]
[paste the COMPLEXITY FINDINGS block here]
[paste the COVERAGE FINDINGS block here]"
Confirm the comment URL was returned and print it.
-
If no PR is open, format and print the report to the terminal using the same structure the quality-reporter would use.
Summary line
After posting (or printing), output a summary: "Code quality gate complete. Security: [count or 'clean'], Complexity: [count or 'clean'], Coverage: [count or 'clean']."
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 60 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 4216dec2fb78
code-quality-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository davila7/claude-with-skills (13 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 461 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…