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 Jewgah/claude-code-skills --skill thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jewgah/claude-code-skillsWrote 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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jewgah/claude-code-skills/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jewgah/claude-code-skills/thermo-nuclear-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/jewgah/claude-code-skills/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jewgah/claude-code-skills/thermo-nuclear-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 | $0.00054 | $0.02811 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.01124 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00562 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00281 |
Grade A, and why
thermo-nuclear-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 yesterday.
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 — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Thermo-Nuclear Code Quality Review
Adapted from Cursor's thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review, MIT, (c) 2026 Cursor (see LICENSE in this folder).
Local adaptations
These override the upstream body below wherever they conflict, including the Core Prompt's "current branch's changes" and the abstraction remedies.
- Scope: same arguments as
/review-deep(staged, unstaged, last-commit, branch/pr, or blank for all ofgit diffplusgit diff --cached), so it also works on uncommitted work onmain, not only on a branch. - Delete before you abstract: suggest "move it behind an abstraction / policy object / state machine / dispatcher" only when that removes more code or concepts than it adds. Otherwise prefer deleting the branch or keeping the direct flow.
- Report only, never edit files. Findings print in the terminal; applying them is a separate step you ask for.
Use this skill for an unusually strict review focused on implementation quality, maintainability, abstraction quality, and codebase health.
Above all, this skill should push the reviewer to be ambitious about code structure. Do not merely identify local cleanup opportunities. Actively search for "code judo" moves: restructurings that preserve behavior while making the implementation dramatically simpler, smaller, more direct, and more elegant.
Core Prompt
Start from this baseline:
Perform a deep code quality audit of the current branch's changes. Rethink how to structure / implement the changes to meaningfully improve code quality without impacting behavior. Work to improve abstractions, modularity, reduce Spaghetti code, improve succinctness and legibility. Be ambitious, if there is a clear path to improving the implementation that involves restructuring some of the codebase, go for it. Be extremely thorough and rigorous. Measure twice, cut once.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 207 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 52410c97b310
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jewgah/claude-code-skills (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 2,811 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 2026-10-14.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.
no-comments
Spawn Comment Sicko, fix accepted findings, and offer encodings for claimed constraints.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
graphify-dotnet
Use graphify-dotnet to generate codebase knowledge graphs, architecture snapshots, and exportable repository maps from .NET or polyglot source trees, with optional AI-enriched semantic relationships. USE FOR: graphify commands; graph JSON, HTML, SVG, Cypher, Markdown, and Obsidian exports; repository map and…
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…