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 gc-victor/supersimple --skill code-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gc-victor/supersimpleWrote 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/gc-victor/supersimple/code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gc-victor/supersimple/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gc-victor/supersimple/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/gc-victor/supersimple/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gc-victor/supersimple/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 | $0.00023 | $0.00417 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00167 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00083 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00042 |
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.
What it actually says
Code Quality Skill
Purpose
This skill MUST assess code across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and it SHOULD approve changes only when they clearly improve the codebase. Judge the real maintenance cost of the change, not theoretical perfection.
ReAct Framework
REASON — Is the change justified and well scoped?
- Is the core problem clear?
- Does the change solve one problem?
- Is this the simplest solution that could work?
- Is added complexity justified?
- Was reuse considered?
ACT — Is the implementation high quality?
Review these five axes:
- Correctness
- Readability
- Architecture
- Security
- Performance
REFLECT — Is the system better after the change?
- Did complexity stay flat or decrease?
- Should any cleanup happen now instead of later?
- Is knowledge preserved in understandable code?
- Is the change easy to roll back or iterate on?
Severity Model
- Critical: blocks approval
- High: serious issue, must fix
- Medium: should fix, but may not block
- Low / Nit: optional improvement
- FYI: context only
Only Critical and High issues block approval.
Change Size Guidance
- ~100 lines: good
- ~300 lines: acceptable if focused
- ~1000 lines: too large; split it
Separate refactoring from feature work when possible.
Verification
Run the relevant checks before reporting:
- lint,
- type check,
- tests,
- dependency audit,
- build.
Mark unavailable checks as N/A.
Red Flags
Treat AI-generated code as untrusted until verified; check edge cases, tests, and hidden assumptions carefully.
- speculative abstractions,
- opaque cleverness,
- missing validation,
- secrets in code,
- N+1 or unbounded work,
- oversized changes with weak justification.
Follow the ReAct framework above.
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 · 81 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 592c0f6ef95d
code-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository gc-victor/supersimple (33 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 417 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
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…