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 dean0x/devflow --skill quality-gatesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dean0x/devflowWrote 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/dean0x/devflow/quality-gates)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dean0x/devflow/quality-gates"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/quality-gates/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/dean0x/devflow/quality-gates"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/quality-gates.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00016 | $0.01055 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00422 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
quality-gates 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Self-Review Framework
Systematic self-review for the Harden agent. Evaluate implementation against 9 pillars. Fix issues, don't just report them.
Based on Google Engineering Practices.
Iron Law
FIX BEFORE RETURNING
Self-review is not a report generator. It's a quality gate. If you find a P0 or P1 issue, you fix it. You only return when all critical issues are resolved. Pride in craftsmanship.
The 9 Pillars
| Priority | Action | Pillars |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | MUST fix | Design, Functionality, Security |
| P1 | SHOULD fix | Complexity, Error Handling, Tests |
| P2 | FIX if straightforward | Documentation (Naming and Consistency belong to the Polish agent: report them as SKIP) |
P0 - Design
Does the implementation fit the architecture? Follows existing patterns, respects layer boundaries, dependencies injected.
If FEATURE_KNOWLEDGE is provided (Rules bullets and the KB path, no heading index), verify implementation respects each bullet's anti-pattern, gotcha or invariant; Read a KB section from its path for the architecture. Flag deviations as P0-Design issues when the documented pattern is clearly intentional.
P0 - Functionality
Does the code work? Happy path, edge cases (null, empty, boundary), no race conditions.
P0 - Security
Any vulnerabilities? No injection, input validated, no hardcoded secrets, auth checked.
P1 - Complexity
Understandable in 5 minutes? Functions < 50 lines, nesting < 4 levels, no magic numbers.
P1 - Error Handling
Errors handled explicitly? No swallowed exceptions, helpful messages, resources cleaned up.
P1 - Tests
New code tested? Covers happy path, errors, edges. Tests behavior, not implementation.
P2 - Naming and Consistency
Owned by the Polish agent, which applies the project's naming and style standards. Report both as SKIP; do not judge or fix them here.
P2 - Documentation
Will others understand? Complex logic commented, public APIs documented, no outdated comments.
What ships with it
4 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.
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.
- 2d ago Changed 1788fb01d8e7
- 6d ago Changed 64107bae1439
- 7d ago Changed · -3 lines · -8 tokens per session d60b508a4cee
- 1mo ago First seen · 153 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A f3a1098307d5
quality-gates is a skill published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,055 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
pr-review-canvas
Create a OpenBitFun Canvas for reviewing a pull request, branch diff, or change set with Cursor-style diff cards, review maps, risk callouts, and focused reviewer flow. Use when the user asks for a PR review canvas, diff walkthrough, change-set overview, or visual review summary.
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
review
Adversarial fresh-context review and risk check of an increment before it ships; every finding cites path:line and is re-verified. Use for "review", "qa", "quality check", "critique this".
tech-debt-ci-review
Codex adapter for deep technical-debt and CI-stability audits. Use when asked to find test theater, flaky tests, missing or mis-scoped tests, brittle CI/toolchain behavior, structural debt blocking green PRs, or a remediation order for opencode-swarm.