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 NYTC69/review-loop --skill code-quality-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NYTC69/review-loopWrote 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/nytc69/review-loop/code-quality-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nytc69/review-loop/code-quality-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nytc69/review-loop/code-quality-loop/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/nytc69/review-loop/code-quality-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nytc69/review-loop/code-quality-loop.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 | $0.00076 | $0.01130 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-loop scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Loop
Automated code review cycle: review -> fix -> re-review until clean. Focuses on code-level quality (correctness, style, error handling, tests). It runs as a paired-session review-only run (Step 0).
Step 0 — Entry: paired route (the legacy workflow was removed in v2.13.0)
Resolve entry in .review-loop/config.md (exact values legacy and paired-session): legacy is refused with
code-quality-loop: the legacy workflow was removed in v2.13.0; remove "entry: legacy" from .review-loop/config.md (paired-session is the only entry); an invalid value prints
code-quality-loop: entry "<v>" is not valid (paired-session is the only entry); using paired-session, a duplicate key or
an unreadable config prints code-quality-loop: entry could not be read (<reason>); using paired-session, and both
continue as absent. Then:
--legacyin$ARGUMENTS: refused withcode-quality-loop: the legacy workflow was removed in v2.13.0; run /review-loop:code-quality-loop without --legacy.- A host that is not macOS (
uname -sis notDarwin): refused withcode-quality-loop: paired-session needs macOS; Linux and other hosts are not supported. - Otherwise the paired route. This skill owns the notice lines of steps 1 and 3: print each verbatim as visible reply text (not only in a tool call), as the first output after resolving
entryand before any other tool call or skill invocation, also on a headless run. The paired-session skill prints them only when they are missing.- Print
code-quality-loop: paired-session review-only run (entry set in .review-loop/config.md)when the key is set, orcode-quality-loop: paired-session review-only run (the default entry)when it is absent. - Map the arguments; a refused one stops here with its line, before any handoff:
[max-rounds]N: an integer of at least 2 becomes--max-exec-rounds N(round 1 reviews the existing change; blocking reviews at the cap end in a HOLD) and wins oversoft_limit_exec; absent, the paired-session skill's usual mapping applies (soft_limit_exec, else the coordinator default). Anything else is refused:code-quality-loop: max-rounds must be an integer of at least 2 on the paired route (round 1 reviews the existing change).--skip-reorganize: printcode-quality-loop: --skip-reorganize has no effect; the paired route never reorganizes.--reorganize: refused,code-quality-loop: reorganize is not part of the paired route; run /review-loop:reorganize <files> after the run.- Any other argument: refused,
code-quality-loop: unknown argument <arg>; usage: /review-loop:code-quality-loop [max-rounds]. auto_commit: falsein.review-loop/config.md: hand over--auto-commit false(absent ortrue: the review-only default, one local commit atacceptwith lifecycle on; off returns the uncommitted tree).judgment_modelorcheap_modelset in.review-loop/config.md: print, per key,code-quality-loop: <key> in .review-loop/config.md is not applied by paired-session; models come from the operator profile. (review_focus,review_styleandquality_focusare passed to the run by the paired-session skill.)
- Print
code-quality-loop: with lifecycle on, the paired route reviews, fixes, simplifies and consolidates tests. Acceptance normally makes one local commit (never a push;auto_commit: falsein .review-loop/config.md keeps it uncommitted). With lifecycle off, it stops after the gate; acceptance returns the uncommitted tree. It does not reorganize, run static-analysis artifacts, load a design document or sweep project docs. - Invoke the
paired-sessionskill with--code-quality-loopand the mapped--max-exec-rounds Nand--auto-commit false(if any), and end this skill. It follows the shared contract's Code-quality-loop entry: a review-only run on the uncommitted change with the quality writers on when lifecycle is on, ending at DONE (or HOLD);acceptwrites the delivery report. - If the paired-session skill reports
stage A failure: <reason>, reportcode-quality-loop: paired-session entry refused (<reason>)and stop (nothing falls back).
- Print
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +4 tokens per session ad3ecdaed705
- 15d ago Changed · -614 lines · -22 tokens per session 29e670392bb2
- 16d ago Changed · +43 lines · +54 tokens per session e13fe34e173e
- 17d ago Changed ddb509df731d
- 21d ago Changed 255068b31d8f
- 25d ago Changed · +66 lines 63aea7d732fb
- 28d ago Changed · +1 lines 34b4cbc192cc
- 1mo ago Changed d6fe9d31193b
- 1mo ago First seen · 552 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 0e21cb370df7
code-quality-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository NYTC69/review-loop (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,130 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
concept-audit
A read-only audit skill for checking code against Daniel Jackson concept models, which describe independent parts of a system and how they work together.
vet
Thorough codebase investigation that finds and fixes real problems. Maps architecture, scans every layer (structural, correctness, security, reliability, performance, hygiene), prioritized report with evidence, fix plan, executes collaboratively. A senior engineer doing a full review with authority to fix. Use when…
unused-code-audit
A code-audit skill for proving whether files, exports, functions, components, types, or helpers have real users before removal.
omc-review
Evaluate finished work for defects, risk, and simplification before it ships.
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
code-review-web
Review web application code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and stack-specific anti-patterns. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review code, debug a production issue, investigate a build failure, audit security, or check a PR before merging. Triggers on code review, review my code, debug…