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 infraspecdev/tesseract --skill code-quality-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/infraspecdev/tesseractWrote 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/infraspecdev/tesseract/code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/infraspecdev/tesseract/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/infraspecdev/tesseract/code-quality-review/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/infraspecdev/tesseract/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/infraspecdev/tesseract/code-quality-review.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 | $0.00068 | $0.01095 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00438 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
backend-code-quality-review 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Backend Code Quality Review
Overview
Review backend source code against language- and framework-agnostic software-engineering principles: SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, naming clarity, cohesion at the type level, and coupling between modules. The skill flags structural smells that make code hard to evolve, not surface-level style issues.
Triggers on backend stacks (file paths under services/, src/, backend/, presence of pom.xml, package.json, pyproject.toml, go.mod). Does not apply to infra code.
When to Use
- Reviewing changes to service classes, domain models, controllers, repositories
- Auditing a new module before merge
- Pre-implementation: shaping the design while writing a plan
When NOT to Use
- Pure infrastructure code — use the relevant infra skill
- Trivial changes (one-line fixes, comment-only edits, generated code)
- Performance review — separate concern
- Security review — use the security-engineer agent
Review Process
- Identify all source files in scope
- For each file, walk through the Evaluation Points below and grade
- Where a check fails, write a finding with file path, line range, severity, and a one-sentence recommendation
- Group findings by file in the output
Evaluation Points
| # | Check | What to Look For | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Single Responsibility | Each class/module has one reason to change. Flag god classes (services that handle multiple unrelated domains), fat methods doing 4+ things, mixing transport/business/persistence concerns | High |
| Q2 | Open/Closed | Extension points where they make sense; no if-else chains that grow with each new type. Strategy/polymorphism over type checks |
Medium |
| Q3 | Interface segregation | Interfaces are small and role-specific. Flag fat interfaces clients implement only partially | Medium |
| Q4 | Dependency direction | High-level modules don't depend on low-level details. Flag domain code reaching into framework specifics | Medium |
| Q5 | DRY | Duplicated logic across methods/classes. Flag copy-paste with minor variation; suggest extraction | High |
| Q6 | KISS | Simple solutions for the actual requirement. Flag over-engineering, unnecessary abstraction layers, "framework-y" indirection | Medium |
| Q7 | YAGNI / speculative generality | Unused parameters, configuration knobs nothing reads, abstract base classes with one subclass, "future-proof" interfaces | Medium |
| Q8 | Naming | Names match what the code does. Flag x, tmp, data, do2, helper (without context), inconsistent casing for the same concept |
Low to Medium |
| Q9 | Function/method size | Functions short enough to hold in mind. Flag methods over ~30 lines or with nesting depth >3 | Medium |
| Q10 | Coupling | Modules depend on abstractions, not concretions. Flag direct instantiation across module boundaries (new ConcreteService() in a domain class) |
Medium |
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 · 79 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 18f220c39ab9
backend-code-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository infraspecdev/tesseract (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,095 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
platform-apex-generate
Primary Apex authoring skill for class generation, refactoring, and review. ALWAYS ACTIVATE when the user mentions Apex, .cls, triggers, or asks to create/refactor a class (service, selector, domain, batch, queueable, schedulable, invocable, DTO, utility, interface, abstract, exception, REST resource). Use this skill…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
api-contract-review
Use when auditing CloudBase cloud API wrappers, MCP tools, generated action metadata, or related docs for outdated or incorrect action names, parameters, casing, request shapes, or missing contract tests, especially during periodic quality review or before preparing corrective PRs.
ring:migrating-to-lib-observability
Migrating a Lerian Go app off lib-commons observability imports (deprecated shims or removed APIs) to lib-observability via a fixed mapping table, then bumps go.mod and validates the build; ring:backend-go applies the edits. Covers log/zap/runtime/assert, opentelemetry/tracing, HTTP middleware, context helpers, and…
ring:mapping-streaming-events
Mapping the eventable points in a Lerian Go service where lib-streaming should emit past-tense, durable, tenant-scoped business events, producing a PM-validated event catalog and instrumentation-map.json for ring:instrumenting-streaming-events. Three-pass discovery (Survey, Slice, Mark) with a scope fence and delivery…