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 diagnostic-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/diagnostic-code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/diagnostic-code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/diagnostic-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/diagnostic-code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dr-robert-li/cowork-wordpress-expert/diagnostic-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 | $0.00051 | $0.03793 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.01517 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00759 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00379 |
Grade A, and why
diagnostic-code-quality 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 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -s "https://api.wordpress.org/plugins/info/1.2/?action=plugin_information&request[slug]={dirname}" | grep -q '"error"' How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 469 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
WordPress Code Quality Diagnostic Skill
This skill performs comprehensive code quality analysis on custom WordPress code using a tiered approach to maximize efficiency while providing deep, actionable insights.
Analysis Scope
Analyze: Active theme + custom (non-WP.org) plugins only Skip: Core WordPress files and plugins from the WordPress.org repository (version audit handles those)
Section 1: Target Selection
Before analysis, determine which code to scan based on the connected WordPress site.
Step 1.1: Identify Active Theme
Get the active theme (parent) and child theme if applicable:
# Get active parent theme
ssh {user}@{host} "cd {wp_path} && {wp_cli_path} option get template"
# Get active stylesheet (child theme if different from template)
ssh {user}@{host} "cd {wp_path} && {wp_cli_path} option get stylesheet"
Scan targets: All PHP and JS files in:
.sites/{site-name}/wp-content/themes/{template}/(parent theme).sites/{site-name}/wp-content/themes/{stylesheet}/(child theme if different)
Step 1.2: Identify Custom Plugins
For each plugin directory in .sites/{site-name}/wp-content/plugins/, determine if it's a custom plugin or from WordPress.org:
WP.org Plugin Detection Heuristic:
- Check if
readme.txtexists with "Stable tag:" header - Verify the slug exists on WordPress.org API:
curl -s "https://api.wordpress.org/plugins/info/1.2/?action=plugin_information&request[slug]={dirname}" | grep -q '"error"' - If API returns error (not found on WP.org) = CUSTOM PLUGIN → Do full code analysis
- If API returns plugin info = WP.org plugin → SKIP code analysis (version audit handles this)
Alternative: Check plugin headers for "Plugin URI" pointing to wordpress.org domains
Step 1.3: List Scan Targets
Before proceeding, output a list of all selected targets:
Code Quality Scan Targets:
- Theme: {theme-name} ({file-count} files)
- Child Theme: {child-theme-name} ({file-count} files) [if applicable]
- Custom Plugins:
- {plugin-1-name} ({file-count} files)
- {plugin-2-name} ({file-count} files)
Total scan targets: {N} files across {M} directories
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 · 469 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A c76e3692941e
diagnostic-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 51 tokens to every session and 3,793 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
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…