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 dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert --skill code-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expertWrote 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/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/code-quality/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/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/code-quality.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00789 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality 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 1mo 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Domain 2: Code Quality & Standards
2.1 WordPress Coding Standards (WPCS)
- PHP code adheres to WordPress PHP Coding Standards
- JavaScript follows WordPress JS Coding Standards
- CSS follows WordPress CSS Coding Standards
- HTML follows WordPress HTML Coding Standards
- Yoda conditions used for comparisons (
if ( true === $var )) - Proper indentation (tabs, not spaces for PHP; as per standard for JS/CSS)
- PHPDoc blocks present for all functions, classes, methods, hooks
- Text domain consistency for internationalization
2.2 Static Analysis
- PHPCS with WordPress-Extra and WordPress-VIP-Go rulesets
- PHPStan at level 6+ (ideally max) with WordPress extensions
- Psalm analysis for type safety
- ESLint for JavaScript with WordPress preset
- Stylelint for CSS/SCSS
2.3 Architecture & Design Patterns
- Proper use of WordPress hooks system (actions and filters) — no function overriding via copy-paste
- Single Responsibility Principle in custom classes
- Proper namespacing to avoid function/class name collisions
- Autoloading via PSR-4 or WordPress-compatible patterns
- Data validation at boundaries (input validation, output escaping)
- Proper separation of concerns (business logic vs presentation)
- No business logic in template files
- Proper use of WordPress transients API for caching expensive operations
- Custom post types and taxonomies registered correctly with appropriate capabilities
- Options API used correctly (autoloaded only when necessary)
2.4 Error Handling
- Try/catch blocks around operations that can fail (API calls, file operations, database)
- WordPress error pattern: return
WP_Errorobjects rather thanfalseor exceptions for API boundaries - Error conditions handled gracefully — no white screens
- Admin notices for recoverable errors
- Logging for non-recoverable errors without exposing details to users
2.5 Deprecated & Removed Functions
- No use of functions deprecated in current WordPress version
- No use of PHP functions deprecated in current PHP version
- No use of MySQL functions replaced by MySQLi/PDO
mysql_*functions completely absentcreate_function()replaced with closureseach()replaced withforeach
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 102 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 319c61d968d7
code-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert (29 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 789 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"…
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…
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…
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…