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 multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams --skill plankton-code-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teamsWrote 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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/plankton-code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/plankton-code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/plankton-code-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/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/plankton-code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams/plankton-code-quality.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 | $0.00034 | $0.02087 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00835 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00417 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00209 |
Grade A, and why
plankton-code-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 2d 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to plankton-code-quality — 16 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 240 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plankton Code Quality Skill
Integration reference for Plankton (credit: @alxfazio), a write-time code quality enforcement system for Claude Code. Plankton runs formatters and linters on every file edit via PostToolUse hooks, then spawns Claude subprocesses to fix violations the agent didn't catch.
When to Use
- You want automatic formatting and linting on every file edit (not just at commit time)
- You need defense against agents modifying linter configs to pass instead of fixing code
- You want tiered model routing for fixes (Haiku for simple style, Sonnet for logic, Opus for types)
- You work with multiple languages (Python, TypeScript, Shell, YAML, JSON, TOML, Markdown, Dockerfile)
How It Works
Three-Phase Architecture
Every time Claude Code edits or writes a file, Plankton's multi_linter.sh PostToolUse hook runs:
Phase 1: Auto-Format (Silent)
├─ Runs formatters (ruff format, biome, shfmt, taplo, markdownlint)
├─ Fixes 40-50% of issues silently
└─ No output to main agent
Phase 2: Collect Violations (JSON)
├─ Runs linters and collects unfixable violations
├─ Returns structured JSON: {line, column, code, message, linter}
└─ Still no output to main agent
Phase 3: Delegate + Verify
├─ Spawns claude -p subprocess with violations JSON
├─ Routes to model tier based on violation complexity:
│ ├─ Haiku: formatting, imports, style (E/W/F codes) — 120s timeout
│ ├─ Sonnet: complexity, refactoring (C901, PLR codes) — 300s timeout
│ └─ Opus: type system, deep reasoning (unresolved-attribute) — 600s timeout
├─ Re-runs Phase 1+2 to verify fixes
└─ Exit 0 if clean, Exit 2 if violations remain (reported to main agent)
What the Main Agent Sees
| Scenario | Agent sees | Hook exit |
|---|---|---|
| No violations | Nothing | 0 |
| All fixed by subprocess | Nothing | 0 |
| Violations remain after subprocess | [hook] N violation(s) remain |
2 |
| Advisory (duplicates, old tooling) | [hook:advisory] ... |
0 |
The main agent only sees issues the subprocess couldn't fix. Most quality problems are resolved transparently.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 240 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A e75be8a685f2
plankton-code-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository multiplex-ai/muggle-ai-teams (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 2,087 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to plankton-code-quality, differing in 16 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-review
Before committing substantial work, at worker completion, before external review, or on an explicit adversarial/red-team request for a diff, branch, or PR, use independent finders and a skeptic to verify defects, disposition findings, and enforce the blocker gate.
ensemble-beads-build
Drive an existing bead hierarchy to completion through the full builder, code-review, and close pipeline (Codex skill for /ensemble:beads-build).
discover
Primary router for discovery, debugging, investigation, quality, and exploration workflows. Analyzes user intent and dispatches to debug, bughunt, quick-review, deep-review, coverage, testing-strategy, learn, tour, impact, assist-review. The recommended entry point for any 'find out', 'check', 'review', or…
Test Assertion Effectiveness 常に PASS するテストの検出
A test review that finds assertions—checks in tests—that do not really verify the program under test and therefore may always pass.
river-review-architecture
An architecture-review guide that checks whether software design decisions, system boundaries, and data models fit together consistently. An architecture review examines the structure and dependencies of a system.
Logic Torturing 論理検証
A review method for testing the reasoning behind design choices and implementation decisions in a code change.