Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lowtidebuild/ebook-writer. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lowtidebuild/ebook-writer/main/.claude/skills/quality-checker/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lowtidebuild/ebook-writerWrote 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/lowtidebuild/ebook-writer/quality-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lowtidebuild/ebook-writer/quality-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lowtidebuild/ebook-writer/quality-checker/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/lowtidebuild/ebook-writer/quality-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lowtidebuild/ebook-writer/quality-checker.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00497 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00249 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
quality-checker 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 9d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quality Checker Skill
Purpose
Provides a structured quality rubric for evaluating ebook chapter manuscripts, combining general quality criteria with domain-specific plugin criteria.
Quality Rubric
1. Content Accuracy (Weight: Critical)
- Key claims are factually correct and source-backed
- Technical information is current and accurate
- Code examples produce expected results
- No misleading or ambiguous statements
2. Clarity & Accessibility (Weight: High)
- Language matches target audience level
- Complex concepts are explained before being used
- Technical jargon is defined on first use
- Examples effectively illustrate concepts
3. Completeness (Weight: High)
- All outline Key Content items are covered
- No topics are mentioned but left unexplained
- Code examples include necessary context (imports, setup)
- Sufficient depth for the reader to apply knowledge
4. Structure & Flow (Weight: Medium)
- Logical progression within each chapter
- Clear heading hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3)
- Appropriate use of lists, code blocks, emphasis
- Smooth transitions between sections
5. Code Quality (Weight: High, for technical books)
- Syntactically valid code
- Follows language conventions and best practices
- Comments explain non-obvious logic
- Realistic examples (not contrived)
6. Cross-Chapter Consistency (Weight: Medium)
- Uniform terminology throughout the book
- Consistent tone and voice
- Accurate cross-references
- No contradictions between chapters
7. Domain Plugin Criteria (Weight: Variable)
If a domain plugin quality_criteria.md exists, apply its criteria in addition to the above. Common domain criteria:
- Domain-specific terminology standards
- Citation and reference format requirements
- Required disclaimers or warnings
- Prohibited language or claims
Severity Classification
| Severity | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Blocking | Must fix before publication. Factual errors, broken code, missing critical content | Rewrite chapter |
| Non-blocking | Should fix but not a showstopper. Style issues, minor inconsistencies | Fix in editing |
| Note | Informational. Suggestions for improvement | Log only |
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 118f1e56f6d4
quality-checker is a skill published in the GitHub repository lowtidebuild/ebook-writer (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 497 tokens. 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…