Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add laurigates/claude-plugins/plugin install code-quality-pluginWrote 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/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-lint)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-lint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-lint/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/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-lint"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-lint.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 | $0.00043 | $0.01875 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00750 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00375 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00187 |
Grade A, and why
code-lint 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 16d 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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When to Use This Skill
| Use this skill when... | Use something else instead when... |
|---|---|
| Auto-detecting and running the correct linter for a polyglot repo | Detecting structural anti-patterns linters miss → code-antipatterns |
Running ruff/eslint/clippy/gofmt with optional --fix and --format |
Reviewing broader code quality and architecture → code-review |
| Driving a one-shot lint pass before commit | Scanning specifically for swallowed errors → code-hidden-failures --track errors |
| Looking up autofix commands or common fix patterns per language | (use this skill — autofix reference is now here) |
Context
- Package files: !
find . -maxdepth 1 \( -name "package.json" -o -name "pyproject.toml" -o -name "setup.py" -o -name "requirements.txt" -o -name "Cargo.toml" -o -name "go.mod" \) -type f - Pre-commit config: !
find . -maxdepth 1 -name ".pre-commit-config.yaml" -type f
Parameters
Parse $ARGUMENTS and bind three values before running anything. These are
supplied by the caller; nothing substitutes them for you.
Token in $ARGUMENTS |
Binds | Default when absent |
|---|---|---|
| First non-flag token | PATH — the file or directory to lint |
. (repo root) |
--fix |
FIX — apply autofixes |
off; check only |
--format |
FORMAT — run formatters in write mode |
off; formatters run in --check mode |
Every command in Step 2 is written with a literal PATH placeholder. Substitute
the bound value when you run it — e.g. with $ARGUMENTS empty, ruff check PATH
is run as ruff check ..
Execution
Run this lint pass:
Step 0: One-shot path (preferred when no PATH is given)
When the caller passed no path (or passed .), the bundled detector already does
detection, tool discovery, and fixing in a single call:
bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-lint/scripts/detect-and-fix.sh"
bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/code-lint/scripts/detect-and-fix.sh" --check-only
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.
- 16d ago Changed f88761f300f1
- 19d ago Changed 374cb1b3b960
- 1mo ago Changed · -2 tokens per session 26d5f4c07419
- 1mo ago First seen · 162 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 1d44cd4e616f
code-lint is a skill published in the GitHub repository laurigates/claude-plugins (59 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,875 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-feedback
Address code review/PR comments: verify each, then fix.
phpunit-test-team-reviewing
Use this skill when the user asks for a team-based, consensus, multi-reviewer, or red-team review of Shopware PHPUnit tests — trigger phrases like "team review these tests", "consensus review the tests in PR.
phpunit-test-reconciling
Internal sub-skill. Do not auto-activate. Use only when explicitly invoked by name by another skill or agent.
audit-comment-residue
Read-only classifier that flags residue in code comments: history narration, plan or session references, conversational asides, ticket or PR back-references, origin notes, and workarounds with no link or removal condition. Use when asked to 'audit code comments' or report which comments only make sense with the chat…
issue-analyzing
Use this skill when the user asks to analyze a specific GitHub issue, understand what area of code an issue affects, assess an issue's scope, or research the code context around an issue — example triggers like "analyze issue.
pr-analyzing
Use this skill when the user asks to analyze a specific GitHub pull request, review a PR's architectural impact, assess what changed in a PR and why it matters, or research the code relationships affected by a PR — example triggers like "analyze PR.