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 LetheChen/openclaw-longmen-inn --skill quality-assurancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LetheChen/openclaw-longmen-innWrote 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/lethechen/openclaw-longmen-inn/quality-assurance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lethechen/openclaw-longmen-inn/quality-assurance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lethechen/openclaw-longmen-inn/quality-assurance/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/lethechen/openclaw-longmen-inn/quality-assurance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lethechen/openclaw-longmen-inn/quality-assurance.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 | $0.02216 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.01108 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00222 |
Grade A, and why
quality-assurance 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 11d 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 — 280 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
质量保证与验收
能力范围
1. 代码审查 (Code Review)
1.1 功能性审查
- 业务逻辑正确性验证
- 边界条件处理检查
- 错误处理完整性
- 数据流正确性追踪
1.2 代码质量审查
- 代码可读性与可维护性
- 命名规范符合性
- 代码复杂度（圈复杂度、认知复杂度）
- 重复代码检测
- 死代码识别
1.3 安全性审查
- SQL 注入风险
- XSS/CSRF 漏洞
- 敏感信息硬编码检查
- 权限控制完整性
- 依赖漏洞扫描（Snyk / OWASP Dependency Check）
1.4 性能审查
- 算法复杂度评估
- 数据库查询优化检查
- 资源泄漏风险
- 缓存策略合理性
- N+1 查询问题
2. 自动化测试验收
2.1 单元测试验收
- 测试覆盖率检查（行覆盖率、分支覆盖率）
- 测试用例完整性验证
- 测试断言有效性
- Mock/Stub 合理性
- 测试可维护性
2.2 集成测试验收
- API 契约测试
- 数据库集成测试
- 消息队列集成测试
- 第三方服务集成测试
- 数据一致性验证
2.3 端到端测试验收
- 关键用户路径测试
- 跨浏览器兼容性
- 移动端适配验证
- 性能基准测试
3. 性能测试与验收
3.1 负载测试
- 并发用户数基准
- 吞吐量基准（TPS/QPS）
- 响应时间基准（P50/P95/P99）
- 资源利用率基准（CPU/内存/磁盘/网络）
3.2 压力测试
- 系统崩溃临界点
- 降级策略验证
- 熔断机制验证
- 恢复能力测试
3.3 稳定性测试
- 长时间运行稳定性（7x24小时）
- 内存泄漏检测
- 连接池泄漏检测
- 日志磁盘空间管理
4. 交付物验收
4.1 代码交付验收
- 代码仓库规范性
- 提交信息规范性
- 分支管理规范性
- 标签/版本管理
4.2 文档交付验收
- 技术文档完整性
- API 文档准确性
- 部署文档可操作性
- 运维文档完整性
4.3 配置交付验收
- 环境配置完整性
- 密钥管理规范性
- 配置项验证
- 回滚方案完备性
输入
必需输入
- 代码仓库地址及分支
- 需求文档 / PRD
- 技术方案文档
- 测试报告（单元测试、集成测试）
可选输入
- 性能基准要求（默认：响应时间 P95 < 200ms，错误率 < 0.1%）
- 安全合规要求（默认：通过 OWASP Top 10 检查）
- 代码覆盖率要求（默认：行覆盖率 > 80%，分支覆盖率 > 70%）
输出
验收报告
1. 代码审查报告
# 代码审查报告
## 基本信息
- 审查对象：[仓库/分支/PR]
- 审查日期：[日期]
- 审查人：账房先生
## 审查结果
- 严重问题：[数量]
- 重要问题：[数量]
- 建议改进：[数量]
## 详细问题清单
1. [问题描述] - [严重程度] - [位置]
- 建议修复方案
## 整体评价
- 代码质量评级：[A/B/C/D]
- 是否通过审查：[是/否]
- 建议改进方向：[描述]
2. 测试验收报告
# 测试验收报告
## 测试概况
- 测试类型：[单元/集成/E2E/性能]
- 测试环境：[环境描述]
- 测试时间：[时间段]
## 测试结果
- 测试用例总数：[数量]
- 通过数量：[数量] ([百分比]%)
- 失败数量：[数量]
- 跳过数量：[数量]
## 覆盖率
- 行覆盖率：[百分比]%
- 分支覆盖率：[百分比]%
- 函数覆盖率：[百分比]%
## 性能指标
- 平均响应时间：[时间]
- P95 响应时间：[时间]
- P99 响应时间：[时间]
- 吞吐量：[QPS/TPS]
## 结论
- 是否通过验收：[是/否]
- 阻塞问题：[列表]
- 风险提示：[描述]
3. 质量门禁报告
# 质量门禁报告
## 门禁检查项
### 代码质量
- [x] 代码风格检查（Lint）
- [x] 静态代码分析（SonarQube）
- [x] 安全漏洞扫描
- [x] 依赖漏洞扫描
### 测试质量
- [x] 单元测试通过率 > 80%
- [x] 集成测试通过率 > 90%
- [x] 代码行覆盖率 > 80%
- [x] 分支覆盖率 > 70%
### 性能质量
- [x] 响应时间 P95 < 200ms
- [x] 错误率 < 0.1%
- [x] 吞吐量达到基准要求
### 文档质量
- [x] API 文档完整性
- [x] 部署文档可操作性
- [x] 变更日志更新
## 门禁结果
- 通过项：[数量]/[总数量]
- 失败项：[列表]
- 豁免项：[列表]
## 最终结论
- 质量门禁：[通过/不通过]
- 建议操作：[允许部署/禁止部署/条件部署]
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 280 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A fcf769a95b3d
quality-assurance is a skill published in the GitHub repository LetheChen/openclaw-longmen-inn (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,216 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
orchestrated-execution
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.
verify
Run verification and code review on completed tasks.
cli-command
Design, implement, or review Composio CLI commands under ts/packages/cli using Effect, @effect/cli, services, output conventions, configuration and environment variables, and local vendor references. Use for CLI command UX, command wiring, service changes, or CLI source edits. Do not use for CLI E2E-only work; use…
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…