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 FlyFission/nuclear-grade-context-engineering --skill reviewing-code-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FlyFission/nuclear-grade-context-engineeringWrote 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/flyfission/nuclear-grade-context-engineering/reviewing-code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/flyfission/nuclear-grade-context-engineering/reviewing-code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flyfission/nuclear-grade-context-engineering/reviewing-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/flyfission/nuclear-grade-context-engineering/reviewing-code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flyfission/nuclear-grade-context-engineering/reviewing-code-quality.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 | $0.00073 | $0.01857 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00743 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00371 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00186 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-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 — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Code Quality
Overview
Standards drift in code is the slow buildup of complexity. Files grow until no one can hold them in their head. Layers get added that do not pull their weight. Logic for one feature leaks into shared code. Clever, hard-to-follow code replaces plain, direct code. Each step looks fine on its own. Added up, they make a system no one can maintain. This review holds the line and keeps standards rising. Its strongest move is deletion: prefer removing structure over moving it around. It ends in one honest verdict, not a softened summary. A review that always says "looks good" is not a control. The cost is not only human: a controlled minimal-pair study found a coding agent on cleaner code used roughly 7-8% fewer tokens and revisited already-edited files about a third less often, at an unchanged pass rate -- so drift is also a standing tax on every future agent run. That study's authors are affiliated with a code-quality vendor whose product the finding favors, it covered one agent over six repository pairs, and it improved cost rather than correctness; treat it as an argument about price, not about capability (fuller boundary in docs/02-operating-system/token-burn-control.md).
Decision contract
- Claim checked: the diff was read against its goal, deletion was considered before rearranging for each complexity finding, and the verdict matches the findings -- an INCONCLUSIVE verdict naming the missing evidence.
- Artifact observed: the diff or module, its mission anchor or goal, and the shared-versus-feature layering map -> a ranked findings list (each with location, standard at risk, concrete fix) and one verdict with a reason.
- Decision affected: block -- one verdict on the diff or module: VERIFIED, NOT VERIFIED, or INCONCLUSIVE.
- Failure class: standards-drift (oversized files, thin pass-through layers, feature logic in shared code, or clever indirection accepted as fine).
- Next action: return NOT VERIFIED for the owner to decide, or INCONCLUSIVE naming the missing context; standards drift that recurs escalates to a control.
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 · 119 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 94bd67becdaf
reviewing-code-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository FlyFission/nuclear-grade-context-engineering (33 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,857 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-refiner
Deep code simplification and refactoring preserving behavior across Python, Go, TypeScript, Rust. Targets complexity, anti-patterns, readability debt. Triggers on: "simplify this code", "refactor for clarity", "reduce complexity", "make this more readable", "tech debt cleanup", "too much nesting".
package-optimizer
Evaluate one existing package or bounded package family from recorded evaluator evidence and a capability profile, then propose retain, simplify, strengthen, retire, or inconclusive without editing. Use when optimizing a skill, agent, hook, rule, command, utility, or preset; evaluating whether package detail is…
review-skill
Review a proposed Agent Skill for structural validity and content quality before publishing. Runs the skill-validator CLI to check for structural issues, scores the skill with an LLM judge, and interprets results to advise authors on what to address. Use when a user wants to review, validate, or quality-check an Agent…
concord-relay
Keep this Grok session reachable by other Concord agents while idle.
false-positive-gate
Use when you have a candidate security finding and before it goes in a comment - restate it as a crossed boundary, prove reachability, impact and a concrete exploit, apply triage dismissals, route out-of-repository facts to needs-validation, keep the effect no stronger than the trace, then the self-refute and verifier…
pre-landing-review
Gate-oriented safety audit for code changes before landing, using a checklist with two-pass severity triage. Triggers on: "is this safe to land", "pre-landing review", "safety check before merge", "gate check", "/pre-landing-review". NOT for diff review, use pr-review.