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 mendixlabs/mxcli --skill assess-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mendixlabs/mxcliWrote 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/mendixlabs/mxcli/assess-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mendixlabs/mxcli/assess-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mendixlabs/mxcli/assess-quality/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/mendixlabs/mxcli/assess-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mendixlabs/mxcli/assess-quality.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.04300 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.01720 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00860 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00430 |
Grade A, and why
assess-quality 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 3d 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 — 448 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Find it fast
sed -n '<from>,<to>p' SKILL.md one section rather than reading the file;
./mxcli syntax <topic> answers how do I write this for a fraction of either.
| lines | section |
|---|---|
| 29-36 | When to Use This Skill |
| 37-96 | Assessment Workflow |
| 97-352 | Quality Guidelines Reference |
| 353-363 | Assessment Report Template |
| 364-376 | Executive Summary |
| 377-387 | project Metrics |
| 388-400 | Automated Findings |
| 401-420 | Manual Review Findings |
| 421-436 | Recommendations |
| 437-447 | Sources |
Assess Mendix Project Quality
This skill guides a comprehensive quality assessment of a Mendix project, evaluating it against established best practices across naming, security, performance, maintainability, architecture, and more.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
- A user asks to evaluate the quality of a Mendix project
- Reviewing a project against best practices before go-live
- Performing a health check or audit on an existing application
- Onboarding onto a project and wanting to understand its quality posture
Assessment Workflow
Step 1: Run Automated Analysis
Run the automated linter and report to get a baseline score:
# connect to the project and build a full catalog (needed for deep analysis)
mxcli -p app.mpr -c "refresh catalog full"
# run the linter (41 rules: MDL, SEC, QUAL, ARCH, design, CONV series)
mxcli lint -p app.mpr
# generate the scored best practices report
mxcli report -p app.mpr --format markdown
# score only the app's own modules (not Marketplace / platform modules)
mxcli report -p app.mpr --modules MyModule,OtherModule --format markdown
The report covers 6 categories with scores: Naming, Security, Quality, Architecture, Performance, Design.
Step 2: Explore Project Structure
Use catalog queries to understand the project's shape:
-- Overview of project size and structure
describe structure depth 2;
-- Key metrics
select module_name, count(*) from CATALOG.entities GROUP by module_name;
select module_name, count(*) from CATALOG.microflows GROUP by module_name;
select module_name, count(*) from CATALOG.pages GROUP by module_name;
-- Complexity metrics (McCabe/Sigrid-style)
select qualified_name, cyclomatic_complexity
from CATALOG.microflows
where cyclomatic_complexity > 10
ORDER by cyclomatic_complexity desc;
-- Large microflows
select qualified_name, activity_count
from CATALOG.microflows
where activity_count > 15
ORDER by activity_count desc;
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +1 lines f1e41508f36d
- 5d ago Changed · +19 lines 338f24e6ed77
- 6d ago Changed · +1 lines b5330f308672
- 13d ago Changed · +3 lines e3e0ec609796
- 14d ago Changed 2efacd4ad91a
- 15d ago Changed 74472d62dd25
- 1mo ago First seen · 424 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 142cbd5d1a1c
assess-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository mendixlabs/mxcli (130 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 4,300 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
triage
Gatekeep and review GitHub issues and pull requests for Qwen Code maintainers. Use for GitHub Action issue triage, PR admission checks, product-direction review, KISS-focused PR review, and staged bilingual GitHub comments.
autofix
Review and repair current local changes until they converge, or run Qwen Code Autofix issue and review workflows from GitHub Actions.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
code-clean
Cut dead code and over-long comments from termio's Swift, verifying every deletion against a build. Knows this repo's real failure mode (essay-length doc comments, not restated-code slop) and periphery's four known false-positive shapes. Invoke when the user says 'clean dead code', 'clean up the comments', 'the…
pr-council-review
Multi-dimensional LLM council review of an open PR (default) or a local feature branch (§ 8 branch mode, invoked via /gflow:branch-review). Five baseline dimensions (correctness, quality, security, tests, memory-hygiene) plus adaptive dimensions per surface (transports / data / CLI / docs / auth / BDD / scripts /…